[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76297-76298]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30884]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1066]

Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs, and Activities
Funded Under Provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century; Fiscal Year 2015

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In 1999, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
made $5 million per year available for the payment of Coast Guard
expenses for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating
and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. In
2005, the law was amended, and the amount was increased to $5.5
million. The Coast Guard is publishing this notice to satisfy a
requirement of the Act that a detailed accounting of the projects,
programs, and activities funded under the national recreational boating
safety program provision of the Act be published annually in the
Federal Register. This notice specifies the funding amounts the Coast
Guard has committed, obligated, or expended during fiscal year 2015, as
of September 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice, call
Jeff Ludwig, Regulations Development Manager, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century became law on
June 9, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 107). The Act required that of
the $5 million made available to carry out the national recreational
boating safety program each year, $2 million shall be available only to
ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code. On September
29, 2005, the Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Amendments
Act of 2005 was enacted (Public Law 109-74; 119 Stat. 2031). This Act
increased the funds available to the national recreational boating
safety program from $5 million to $5.5 million annually, and stated
that ``not less than'' $2 million shall be available only to ensure
compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code.
    These funds are available to the Secretary from the Sport Fish
Restoration and Boating Trust Fund established under 26 U.S.C. 9504(a)
for payment of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities
directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national
recreational boating safety program. Under 46 U.S.C. 13107(c), no funds
available to the Secretary under this subsection may be used to replace
funding traditionally provided through general appropriations, nor for
any purposes except those purposes authorized; namely, for personnel
and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the
national recreational boating safety program. Amounts made available
under 46 U.S.C. 13107(c) remain available during the two succeeding
fiscal years. Any amount that is unexpended or unobligated at the end
of the 3-year period during which it is available, shall be withdrawn
by the Secretary and allocated to the States in addition to any other
amounts available for allocation in the fiscal year in which they are
withdrawn or the following fiscal year.
    Use of these funds requires compliance with standard Federal
contracting rules with associated lead and processing times resulting
in a lag time between available funds and spending. The total amount of
funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Sport Fish Restoration
and Boating Trust Fund and committed, obligated, and/or expended during
fiscal year 2015 for each activity is shown below.

Specific Accounting of Funds

    Manufacturer Compliance Inspection Program/Boat Testing Program:
Funding was provided to continue the national recreational boat
compliance inspection program, initiated in January 2001. During the
Fiscal Year contracted personnel, acting on behalf of the Coast Guard,
visit recreational boat manufacturers, recreational boat dealers, and
recreational boat shows to inspect for compliance with the Federal
regulations. During the 2015 reporting

year, inspectors performed 350 factory visits, 218 dealer visits, and
10 boat show visits resulting in 2,800 boats being inspected. Funding
was also provided for testing of certain associated equipment and in-
water testing of atypical and used recreational boats for compliance
with capacity and flotation standards. ($1,587,370). Additional
expenditures regarding this topic that are accounted for in the topics
below are Contract Personnel Support ($103,253), Reimbursable Salaries
($143,222) and New Recreational Boating Safety Associated Travel
($5,526). Collectively, these expenditures, along with other potential
projects, are considered to be applicable to the legal requirement that
``not less than'' $2 million be available to ensure compliance with
Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code.
    Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) Web System: Funding was
allocated to continue providing the BARD Web System, which enables
reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S. Territories, and the
District of Columbia to submit their accident reports electronically
over a secure Internet connection. The system also enables the user
community to generate statistical reports that show the frequency,
nature, and severity of boating accidents. Funds supported system
maintenance, development, and technical (hotline) support. ($367,332).
    Contract Personnel Support: Funding was provided for contract
personnel to support the appropriate cost/benefit analyses for
potential new regulations and to conduct general boating safety-related
research and analysis and to assist the manufacturer compliance
program. ($660,562).
    Boating Accident News Clipping Services: Funding was provided to
continue to gather daily news stories of recreational boating accidents
nationally for more real time accident information and to identify
accidents that may involve regulatory non-compliances or safety
defects. ($25,000).
    New Recreational Boating Safety Associated Travel: Funding was
provided to facilitate travel by employees of the Boating Safety
Division to carry out additional recreational boating safety actions
and to gather background and planning information for new recreational
boating safety initiatives. ($17,564).
    Recreational Boating Safety Outreach Initiatives: Funding was
provided to produce signage promoting recreational boating safety at
the U.S. Coast Guard's Douglas A. Munro Headquarters Building, and to
provide appropriate recognition to select individuals for outstanding
achievements in promoting boating safety. ($2,487).
    Reimbursable Salaries: Funding was provided to carry out the work
as prescribed in 46 U.S.C. 13107(c) and as described herein. The first
position was that of a professional mathematician/statistician to
conduct necessary national surveys and studies on recreational boating
activities as well as to serve as a liaison to other Federal agencies
that are conducting boating surveys so that we can pool our resources
and reduce costs. The second position was that of a Recreational
Boating Safety Specialist/Marine Investigator with responsibilities
that include overseeing and managing RBS projects related to carbon
monoxide poisoning, propeller injury mitigation, and manufacturer
compliance initiatives. The third position was that of a Legislative
and Strategic Planning Manager, with responsibilities that include
analyzing proposed and enacted legislation for RBS impacts, and
managing the development and implementation of the National
Recreational Boating Safety Program's strategic plan. The fourth
position was that of a Division Administrative Assistant, with
responsibilities that include providing administrative support for the
Boating Safety Division. ($513,045).
    Technical Support and Analysis for the Recreational Boating Safety
Program: The purpose of this contract is to obtain Contractor
professional, technical, and management support for services relating
to the national survey development, nonprofit grants grading
assessments, and other analysis as needed for the enhancement of the
administration of the National Recreational Boating Safety Program.
Projects covered by the contract include statistical analyses of data
collected in the 2012 National Recreational Boating Survey and research
on the implications of the findings relative to boating safety and the
National Recreational Boating Safety Program; a review of scientific
literature covering various measures of risk exposure in other
transportation related fields; support in designing the next National
Recreational Boating Survey; and development of a web-based system for
review of national nonprofit organization grant submissions.
($130,847).
    Of the $5.5 million made available to the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 2015, $2,120,466 has been committed, obligated, or expended and an
additional $1,183,741 of prior fiscal year funds have been committed,
obligated, or expended, as of September 30, 2015. The remainder of the
FY14 and FY15 funds made available to the Coast Guard (approximately
$5,132,275) may be retained for the allowable period for the National
Recreational Boating Survey or transferred into the pool of money
available for allocation through the state grant program.

Authority

    This notice is issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 and 46 U.S.C.
13107(c)(4).

    Dated: December 2, 2015.
V.B. Gifford,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections & Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-30884 Filed 12-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 80)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22045-22047]
[DOCID:fr27ap10-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0400; Airspace Docket No. 10-ACE-3]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Syracuse, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Syracuse, KS. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Syracuse--Hamilton
County Municipal Airport, Syracuse, KS. The FAA is taking this action
to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2010-0400/Airspace Docket No. 10-
ACE-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-0400/
Airspace Docket No. 10-ACE-3.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface for SIAPs operations at Syracuse--
Hamilton County Municipal Airport, Syracuse, KS. Controlled airspace is
needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009 and effective September 15, 2009, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish controlled airspace at Syracuse--Hamilton County
Municipal Airport, Syracuse, KS.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27,
2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Syracuse, KS [New]

Syracuse--Hamilton County Municipal Airport, KS
    (Lat. 37[deg]59'30'' N., long. 101[deg]44'47'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.3-mile radius of Syracuse--Hamilton County Municipal
Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on April 19, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-9749 Filed 4-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 59779-59780]
[DOCID:fr28se10-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISION

[Release No. 34-62942; File No. SR-OCC-2010-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Weekly Options And
Monthly Options

September 20, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on September 15, 2010, The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared primarily by OCC. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would accommodate options that expire on
(a) any Friday of a calendar month other than the third Friday of a
calendar month (``Weekly Options'') or (b) on the last trading day of a
calendar month (``Monthly Options'').

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

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

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to accommodate Weekly
Options and Monthly Options. The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE''), is proposing to trade Weekly Options and Monthly Options on
broad-based indexes (``Weekly Index Options'' and ``Monthly Index
Options,'' respectively).\2\ Series of Weekly Index Options will expire
on a Friday of a calendar month other than the third Friday and Monthly
Index Options will expire on the last trading day of a calendar month.
If the last trading day of the month is a Friday, CBOE would opt to
list Monthly Index Options over Weekly Index Options. Weekly Index
Options and Monthly Index Options would be European-style, P.M.-settled
contracts. CBOE proposes for these contracts to be subject to
``automatic exercise procedures,'' meaning that these contracts would
automatically be exercised at expiration without the opportunity for
the clearing member to submit contrary exercise instructions if
immediately prior to expiration the contract's settlement amount or
exceeds a certain predetermined amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62658 (Aug. 5, 2010), 75
FR 49010 (Aug. 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Weekly Options and Monthly Options can be cleared and settled by
OCC with relatively minor revisions to current By-laws and Rules to
provide for options that expire on a monthly or weekly schedule as
proposed by CBOE.\3\ Therefore, OCC proposes amending Article I,
Section 1 of its by-laws to include definitions covering Weekly

and Monthly Options. Changes to Rule 801, which relates to the
submission of exercise notices, would be made to permit a Weekly or
Monthly Option to be exercised on the business day before the
expiration date and to include Weekly Index Options and Monthly Index
Options in the listing of options series subject to automatic exercise.
Changes to Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 805, which relates to
expiration date exercise processing, would be made to permit OCC to
specify time frames for submitting exercise instructions and furnishing
reports with respect to Weekly and Monthly Options on equity interests
that are different than those time frames effect for conventional
options.\4\ A conforming change to Rule 1804, which supplements Rule
805, also would be made to add Weekly Index Options and Monthly Index
Options to the list of options series subject to automatic exercise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OCC's By-laws and Rules already accommodate equity and index
options that expire on a day other than a Saturday following the
third Friday of the month. For example, they accommodate quarterly
options, which expire on the last business day of a calendar
quarter, and short term options, which expire a week after their
introduction for trading. Quarterly index options and short term
index options are also subject to automatic exercise procedures.
    \4\ Interpretation .03 would also be amended to clarify that it
covers equity options with non-conventional expiration dates as
opposed to index options with nonconventional expiration dates,
which are subject to automatic exercise as described in Rule 1804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC states that the proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules are
consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act
\5\ because they are designed to permit OCC to perform clearing
services for products that are subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC
without adversely affecting OCC's obligations with respect to the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
or the protection of investors and the public interest. They accomplish
this purpose by applying substantially the same rules and procedures to
transactions in Monthly Index Options and Weekly Index Options as OCC
applies to transactions in other options with a nonconventional expiry
date, including Quarterly Index Options. The proposed rule change is
not inconsistent with any rules of OCC, including any rules proposed to
be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    OCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. OCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to ninety 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 or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-OCC-2010-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OCC-2010-16. 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, 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 OCC's principal office and on OCC's Web site
at http://www.theocc.com/publications/rules/proposed_changes/
proposed_changes.jspU. 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 submission should refer to File No. SR-
OCC-2010-16 and should be submitted on or before October 19, 2010

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

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24199 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 21789-21790]
[DOCID:fr11my09-480]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13390-000]

Northeast Hydrodevelopment, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

May 4, 2009.
    On March 6, 2009, Northeast Hydrodevelopment, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Bucks Street Dams
Hydroelectric Project, to be located on the Suncook River, in Merrimack
County, New Hampshire. On March 25, 2009, the applicant filed
corrections to their original preliminary permit application for the
Buck Street Dams Project.
    The proposed Buck Street Dams Project would be located along the
Suncook River channel below the existing outlet works at an existing
dam owned by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
The existing dams are 198 feet long and 15 feet high and impound the
Suncook River.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Either a new
approximately 120-foot-long power canal or dual 7-foot-diameter
penstocks located below the existing outlet facilities below East Buck
Street Dam; (2) a new powerhouse containing two or three submersible or
tubular-type turbine-generators with a total hydraulic capacity of 600
cubic feet per second and a either a total installed generating
capacity of 0.394 megawatts; (3) a newly excavated 150-foot-long
tailrace; (4) an approximately 200-foot-long transmission line; (5) one
foot of new flashboards would be added to West Buck Street Dam; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The Buck street Dams Project would have an
estimated average annual generation of 1,750 megawatts-hours (MWh),
which would be sold to Public Service of New Hampshire.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Norm Herbert, Manager, Northeast
Hydrodevelopment, LLC, 100 State Route 101A, Building C, Suite 270,
Amherst, New Hampshire 03031,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at

http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this
project can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13390) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10847 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Abamectin Focus Meeting Contact Sheet  	2/14/2013
Name
Organization
Email
Christine Olinger
HED/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Steve Jarboe
BEAD/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Donald Atwood
BEAD/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jean Holmes
EFED/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Laura Parsons
PRD/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nancy Dodd
HED/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nancy Tsaur
HED/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nicholas Federoff
EFED/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>R David Jones
HED/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Harris
RD/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tiffany Coleman
EFED/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Neil Anderson
PRD/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michael Goodis
PRD/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Anderson
EFED/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Khue Nguyen
PRD/OPP
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Carrie Tackema
Cheminova
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janelle Kay
Nufarm, Tide, and Ensystex III
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kristen Knox
Celsius Property (sub.  Of Makhteshim)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dave Anderson
Tree Care Science
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dave Wagner
Rotam
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26016-26017]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10917]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0202; FRL-9962-40-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans (Negative Declarations)
for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Vermont; Revisions to State Plan for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve: Negative declarations for commercial and industrial solid
waste incinerators for the State of Connecticut, the State of New
Hampshire, the State of Rhode Island, and the State of Vermont;
negative declarations for hospital/medical/infectious waste
incinerators for the State of Rhode Island; and revisions to the state
plan for existing large and small municipal waste combustors for the
State of New Hampshire. This action is being made in accordance with
sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0202 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Bird, Air Permits, Toxics, &
Indoor Programs Unit, Air Programs Branch, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Mail Code: OEP05-2, Boston, MA 02109-
0287. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State Plan revisions as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 20, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-10917 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 78141]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2935-026]

Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC; Enterprise Mill LLC; Notice of
Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Protests

    On October 12, 2016, Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC (transferor) and
Enterprise Mill LLC (transferee) filed an application for the transfer
of license of the Enterprise Mill Project No. 2935. The project is
located on the Augusta Canal of the Savannah River in Richmond County,
Georgia. The project does not occupy federal lands.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Enterprise Mill Project Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC to Enterprise
Mill LLC.
    Applicants Contact: For transferor: Ms. Karen Hudspeth, Melaver/
Enterprise Mill, LLC, c/o Melaver, Inc., 114 Barnard Street, Suite 1A,
Savannah, GA 31401, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For transferee: Mr. Carlos
Imery, Enterprise Mill LLC, 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1205, Coral
Gables, FL 33134, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2935-026.

    Dated: November 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26840 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75699-75700]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0308]

Pipeline Safety: Reporting of Exceedances of Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this Advisory Bulletin to inform owners and
operators of gas transmission pipelines that if the pipeline pressure
exceeds maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) plus the build-up
allowed for operation of pressure-limiting or control devices, the
owner or operator must report the exceedance to PHMSA on or before the
fifth day following the date on which the exceedance occurs. If the
pipeline is subject to the regulatory authority of one of PHMSA's State
Pipeline Safety Partners, the exceedance must also be reported to the
applicable state agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Satterthwaite by phone at 202-
366-1319 or by email at

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Information about PHMSA may be found at
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed the Pipeline Safety,
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. Section 23 (a) of
the Act amended 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 to add ``Sec.  60139. Maximum
allowable operating pressure.'' Specifically, Sec.  60139 (b) (2)
states:

    If there is an exceedance of the maximum allowable operating
pressure with respect to a gas transmission pipeline of an owner or
operator of a pipeline facility that exceeds the build-up allowed
for operation of pressure-limiting or control devices, the owner or
operator shall report the exceedance to the Secretary and
appropriate State authorities on or before the 5th day following the
date on which the exceedance occurs.

    This reporting requirement is applicable to all gas transmission
pipeline facility owners and operators. In order to comply with this
self-executing provision, PHMSA advises owners and operators to submit
this information in the same manner as safety-related condition reports
(SRCR). The information submitted by owners and operators should
comport with the information listed in Sec.  191.25(b), and the
reporting methods listed in Sec.  191.25(a) should be employed.
    The reporting exemptions for SRCR listed in Sec.  191.23(b) do not
apply to the reporting requirement for exceedance of MAOP plus build-
up. Specifically, Sec.  191.23(b)(4), which allows for non-reporting if
the safety-related condition is corrected by repair or replacement in
accordance with applicable safety standards before the deadline for
filing the SRCR, does not apply. Gas transmission owners and operators
must report the exceedance of MAOP plus build-up regardless of whether
the exceedance was corrected before five days have passed.
    Finally, owners and operators have five days after occurrence to
report exceedance of MAOP plus build-up.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2012-11)

    To: Owners and Operators of Gas Transmission Pipeline Facilities.
    Subject: Reporting of Exceedances of Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressure.
    Advisory: Section 23 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty,
and Job Creation Act of 2011 requires owners and operators of gas
transmission pipeline facilities to report any exceedance of the
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) plus the build-up allowed
for operation of pressure-limiting or control devices. This requirement
further specifies that such exceedances must be reported within five
calendar days of the exceedance. PHMSA is issuing this Advisory
Bulletin to notify operators to submit information comparable to that
required for Safety-Related Condition reports as outlined in Sec.
191.25(b) for reports of exceedance. The report should be titled ``Gas
Transmission MAOP Exceedance'' and provide the following information:
     The name and principal address of the operator, date of
the report, name, job title, and business telephone number of the
person submitting the report.
     The name, job title, and business telephone number of the
person who determined the condition exists.
     The date the condition was discovered and the date the
condition was first determined to exist.
     The location of the condition, with reference to the town/
city/county and state or offshore site, and as appropriate, nearest
street address, offshore platform, survey station number, milepost,
landmark, and the name of the commodity transported or stored.
     The corrective action taken before the report was
submitted and the planned follow-up or future corrective action,
including the anticipated schedule for starting and concluding such
action.
    These reports must be submitted within five days of the occurrence
using one of the reporting methods described in Sec.  191.25(a). PHMSA
is poised to issue a final rule modifying this regulation to include
electronic mail (email) as an acceptable reporting method for SRCR.
    PHMSA encourages gas transmission owners and operators to report
MAOP plus build-up exceedances by emailing information to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Reports may also be submitted by
fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2012.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-30770 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40107-40111]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17232]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86589; File No. SR-DTC-2018-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and
2, To Amend the Settlement Guide Procedures To Provide Status
Information for Institutional Transactions to a Matching Utility

August 7, 2019.
    On November 29, 2018, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to allow DTC to
share status information with matching utilities (SR-DTC-2018-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on December 12, 2018.\3\ In response, the Commission received
one comment letter on the proposed rule change.\4\ On December 26,
2018, the Commission extended the time period within which to approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change to March 12, 2019.\5\ On March 11, 2019, the
Commission issued an order instituting proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change (``OIP'').\7\ The Commission
received additional comments on the proposal in response to the OIP.\8\
On June 5, 2019, the Commission designated a longer period for
Commission action on the proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84751 (December 7,
2018), 83 FR 63948 (December 12, 2018) (SR-DTC-2018-010)
(``Notice'').
    \4\ Letter from Mari-Anne Pisarri, Pickard Djinis and Pisarri
LLP, dated January 2, 2019, to Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant
Secretary, Commission, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-dtc-2018-010/srdtc2018010-4842066-177179.pdf (``SS&C Letter I'').
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84954 (December 26,
2018), 84 FR 873 (January 31, 2019) (SR-TC-2018-010).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85288 (March 11, 2019),
84 FR 9565 (March 15, 2019) (SR-DTC-2018-010).
    \8\ Letter from John F. Abel, Executive Director, Settlement and
Asset Services, Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, dated
July 1, 2019, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission,
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-dtc-2018-010/srdtc2018010-5749578-186788.pdf (``DTC Letter II''); Letter from
Mari-Anne Pisarri, Pickard Djinis and Pisarri LLP, dated April 15,
2019, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission, available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-dtc-2018-010/srdtc2018010-5364127-184089.pdf (``SS&C Letter II''); and Letter from Murray
Pozmanter, Managing Director, Head of Clearing Agency Services and
Global Operations, Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, dated
March 26, 2019, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-dtc-2018-010/srdtc2018010-5224494-183708.pdf (``DTC Letter I'').
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88037 (June 5, 2019), 84
FR 27172 (June 11, 2019) (SR-DTC-2018-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2019, DTC filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change to provide status information to a matching utility even if that
matching utility did not submit a transaction to DTC.\10\ On August 5,
2019, DTC filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change to delay
the implementation timeframe of the proposal to until DTC has submitted
a subsequent fee filing.\11\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comment on Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 from interested persons
and to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos.
1 and 2 (hereinafter, ``Proposed Rule Change''), on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DTC submitted a courtesy copy of Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change through the Commission's electronic public
comment letter mechanism. Accordingly, Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change has been publicly available on the Commission's
website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-dtc-2018-010/srdtc2018010.htm since July 2, 2019.
    \11\ DTC submitted a courtesy copy of Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change through the Commission's electronic public
comment letter mechanism. Accordingly, Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change has been publicly available on the Commission's
website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-dtc-2018-010/srdtc2018010-5914689-188969.pdf since August 6, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Background

    DTC proposes to amend the procedures, set forth in the DTC
Settlement Service Guide (``Settlement Guide''),\12\ to allow DTC to
provide status information (``Status Information'') for institutional
transactions in eligible securities (``Institutional Transactions'')
\13\ to an entity providing a matching service (``Matching
Utility''),\14\ as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has its
respective meaning as set forth in the Rules, By-Laws and
Organization Certificate of The Depository Trust Company
(``Rules''), available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx, and the Settlement Service Guide, available at
http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/
Settlement.pdf (``Settlement Guide'').
    \13\ DTC defines an Institutional Transaction as a securities
transaction between a broker-dealer and its institutional customer
(e.g., sell-side firms, buy-side institutions, and custodians).
Notice, supra note 3, 83 FR at 63948.
    \14\ A ``matching service'' is defined in the Settlement Guide
as an electronic service to match trade information, centrally,
between a broker-dealer and its institutional customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Settlement Guide, for a Matching Utility to
establish and maintain a connection with DTC the Matching Utility must
be able to balance with DTC in an automated way \15\ and communicate
transactions to and from DTC with information required though mandated
fields in order to provide DTC with data necessary for it to be able to
process a transaction.\16\ The submission of an

Affirmed Transaction by the Matching Utility to DTC, on behalf of a
Participant, constitutes the duly authorized instruction of the
Participant to DTC to process the Affirmed Transaction in accordance
with the Rules and Procedures.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For each Matching Utility interfacing with DTC, DTC
requires the Matching Utility to deliver a daily message on each
business day shortly after noon from the Matching Utility with their
accepted item counts of institutional delivery and ID Net
transaction totals for transactions settling the previous day.
Settlement Guide, supra note 12 at 35. DTC's system will compare the
totals from the Matching Utility to its accepted item counts. Id. If
the totals match, an ``acknowledged balance'' balance file will be
sent to the Matching Utility. Id. If the totals do not match, DTC
will respond with the list of control numbers received from the
Matching Utility for transactions that settled on the previous day,
along with their respective transaction types for the originating
Matching Utility to compare. Id.
    \16\ Settlement Guide, supra note 12 at 35. The mandated fields
for this purpose are the transaction control number (``Control
Number''), DTC receiver and deliverer account numbers, CUSIP,
message type, share quantity, market type, buy-sell indicator,
broker ID, ID agent internal account number, broker internal account
number, agent bank ID, settlement amount, origination entity,
recipient of message, institution, and settlement date.
Institutional Transactions that are not Affirmed Transactions, but
which include a Control Number, may be submitted directly by
Participants. Id.
    \17\ Settlement Guide, supra note 12 at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A transaction submitted to DTC for processing may be subject to a
processing exception (``Exception''), causing it to pend in the DTC
system or not be processed because the transaction does not satisfy
certain requirements and/or controls set forth in the Rules and
Settlement Guide. A Matching Utility that has submitted an
Institutional Transaction to DTC, or is otherwise involved with the
matching of a transaction, does not receive Status Information
regarding the transaction and is therefore unable to provide services
to facilitate resolution of processing Exceptions occurring at DTC.
Therefore, in order to resolve an Exception, the Participants to an
Institutional Transaction currently must (i) access Status Information
directly through the DTC Settlement User Interface and (ii), as
necessary, supply the information to their customers that are
counterparties to the transaction on their books, in order to
facilitate the coordination of the resolution of the Exception among
the counterparties. DTC states that currently, these communications
among the counterparties to a transaction often occur in a
decentralized manner via email, which is time consuming and subject to
error.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Notice, supra note 3, 83 FR at 63950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change

    DTC received a request from its Matching Utility affiliate, ITP
Matching (US) LLC (``ITP''), to receive Status Information so that ITP
may transmit the Status Information to counterparties in a centralized
format. DTC believes that distribution of Status Information to
relevant counterparties in a centralized format would facilitate
Participants' ability to monitor Exceptions and coordinate with their
institutional customers in order to resolve Exceptions.
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, in order to facilitate more
seamless transmission of the Status Information to Participants and
facilitate their ability to manage Exceptions for (i) Affirmed
Transactions and (ii) other Institutional Transactions that may have
been confirmed at a Matching Utility and received a Control Number and
are submitted directly to DTC by a Participant in an instruction
containing the Control Number (collectively, ``Eligible
Transactions''), DTC proposes to amend the Settlement Guide to provide
that DTC may provide Status Information on Eligible Transactions to the
applicable Matching Utility that submitted the transaction to DTC or
with respect to which its Control Number is included in transaction
details provided by a Participant,\19\ if so requested by the Matching
Utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ DTC states that it is DTC's understanding that a
transaction that has been confirmed within a Matching Utility's
system, but has not been affirmed, may be assigned a Control Number
by the Matching Utility. Any transaction not affirmed by a Matching
Utility would not be submitted by it to DTC as an Affirmed
Transaction. In that case, the Participant may submit the
transaction directly through DTC as a Deliver Order and include the
applicable Control Number as assigned by the Matching Utility on its
submission to DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, DTC would send to a Matching Utility Status
Information for Eligible Transactions that DTC has received from the
Matching Utility or have been entered by the Participant that have a
Control Number associated with that Matching Utility. The Status
Information provided to the Matching Utility would include the status
of the transaction (e.g., the Delivery of Securities has been made
within DTC, the transaction is pending Delivery within DTC, or the
transaction was reclaimed (i.e., sent back to the Deliverer)) and a
reason for any pending status (e.g., the Deliverer has insufficient
inventory in the applicable Securities, the Deliverer has insufficient
Collateral, the Receiver to the transaction has insufficient Net Debit
Cap, etc.). The Status Information would also include information
(``Identifying Information'') to facilitate the Matching Utility's
ability to identify the applicable Eligible Transaction and reconcile
the Status Information to the Eligible Transaction in its records.
Identifying Information would include, but not be limited to, (i) the
applicable Control Number, (ii) identification numbers of the
Participants to the transaction, (iii) quantity of Securities of the
transaction, (iv) dollar amount of the transaction, and (v) an
indicator of whether the transaction was submitted to DTC by the
Matching Utility or directly by a Participant.

Proposed Changes to the Settlement Guide

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC proposes to revise the
Settlement Guide to allow DTC to provide Status Information of Eligible
Transactions to a Matching Utility that requests such information, but
only for those transactions that are associated with a Control Number
relating to the Matching Utility. The proposed text to the Settlement
Guide would also (i) describe the types of Status Information and
related Identifying Information that would be shared with a Matching
Utility in this regard, and (ii) provide that DTC may charge a fee
(``Status Information Fee'') to a Matching Utility that receives Status
Information as set forth in the DTC Fee Guide.\20\ The Proposed Rule
Change would also add a defined term for ``Control Number'' to the
Settlement Guide in existing text where the term is referred to but not
defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/fee-guides/dtcfeeguide.pdf. Any such fee would be the subject
of a subsequent proposed rule change that DTC would file with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule Change would require that prior to providing
Status Information to a Matching Utility, DTC would obtain the written
agreement, in such form as determined by DTC from time to time
(``Status Information Agreement''), from the Matching Utility that
includes the following:
    (i) A request from the Matching Utility to receive Status
Information from DTC;
    (ii) an agreement by the Matching Utility that the Matching Utility
will not distribute Status Information to any third party other than
(a) the Participants indicated on the Status Information and (b) the
institutional customers that are counterparties to the transaction for
which the Participants indicated on the Status Information are acting
with respect to the transaction;
    (iii) the agreement of the Matching Utility that the Matching
Utility will indemnify, hold harmless and agree, on demand, to
reimburse DTC, its stockholders, officers, directors and employees from
and against and for any and all claims, liabilities, obligations,
damages, actions, penalties, losses, costs, expenses and disbursements,
including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and disbursements
(``Claims''), which they may sustain by reason of DTC's providing
Status Information to the Matching Utility, except for any Claims which
result from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the person
asserting a right to indemnification;

    (iv) the agreement of the Matching Utility to pay the Status
Information Fee;
    (v) the agreement of the Matching Utility to notify DTC immediately
if the Matching Utility becomes aware of Status Information provided to
it by DTC being distributed to a third party other than as authorized
pursuant to (ii) above; and
    (vi) the acknowledgement of the Matching Utility that DTC may
terminate the Status Information Agreement in the event that (a) DTC
becomes aware that the Matching Utility has used or distributed the
Status Information in a manner that violates the terms of the Status
Information Agreement, (b) the Matching Utility does not pay the Status
Information Fee in accordance with the terms of the Fee Schedule, or
(c) DTC submits a rule filing to the SEC, which is approved by the SEC
or otherwise becomes effective pursuant to the Act, to discontinue
DTC's distribution of Status Information to Matching Utilities.

Description of Amendment No. 1

    In Amendment No. 1, DTC proposes to provide status information to a
Matching Utility even if that Matching Utility did not submit a
transaction to DTC.\21\ Specifically, DTC will develop the mechanism
necessary for DTC to directly provide Status Information to a Matching
Utility for each transaction submitted to DTC to which a customer of
the Matching Utility is a party to the transaction and matched the
transaction via the Matching Utility, regardless of whether or not that
Matching Utility submitted the transaction to DTC, subject to (i) the
agreement by the Matching Utility to pay DTC for the reasonable cost to
cover for the development of the mechanism by DTC and (ii) the Matching
Utility subscribing to receive Status Information, as described above.
To the extent that the transaction is an interoperable transaction
submitted to DTC by another Matching Utility, then in order to receive
Status Information for the interoperable transaction, the Matching
Utility would be required to submit an indicator to DTC for the purpose
of notifying DTC that a customer of the Matching Utility is a party to
the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Amendment No. 1, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Amendment No. 2

    In Amendment No. 2, DTC proposes to delay the implementation
timeframe of the proposal to until DTC has submitted a subsequent fee
filing.\22\ Specifically, as filed, the proposed rule change would be
effective upon approval by the Commission. Pursuant to Amendment No. 2,
the Proposed Rule Change would not become effective until DTC has
submitted a subsequent proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4
under the Act,\23\ and the subsequent proposed rule change has become
effective. DTC states that subsequent proposed rule change would
implement changes to the DTC Fee Guide \24\ that establish (i) the
Status Information Fee and (ii) a charge that would cover the cost of
DTC's provision of Status Information to a Matching Utility for each
transaction submitted to DTC to which a customer of the Matching
Utility is a party to the transaction and matched the transaction via
the Matching Utility, regardless of whether or not that Matching
Utility submitted the transaction to DTC, as described in Amendment No.
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Amendment No. 2, supra note 11.
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \24\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/fee-guides/dtcfeeguide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning whether Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are 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-DTC-2018-010 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-DTC-2018-010. 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 DTC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-DTC-2018-010 and should be submitted on
or before August 28, 2019.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \25\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization. After carefully considering the Proposed Rule Change, and
all comments received, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule
Change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to DTC.\26\ In particular, as discussed below,
the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change, is consistent with
Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) and (I) of the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \26\ 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). The Commission
addresses comments about economic effects of the Proposed Rule
Change, including competitive effects, below.
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F) and (I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency be designed to, among other things, promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.\28\ For the reasons set forth below, the Commission
believes that the changes described in the Proposed Rule Change are
designed to promote the prompt and accurate

clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, DTC proposes to share Status Information with
Matching Utilities. Matching Utilities already electronically
facilitate communication among the parties to an Institutional
Transaction. Providing Status Information to Matching Utilities would
leverage their existing communication platform to eliminate the need
for Participants to access the Status Information directly from DTC and
then communicate Exception information to other parties in a
decentralized way, including by sending emails which are less efficient
and more error-prone. The Commission believes that this approach should
increase efficiency in communicating Status Information that in turn
could help facilitate enhanced communication among the parties to an
Eligible Transaction to address an Exception so that the Eligible
Transaction may meet DTC controls and be processed for end-of-day
settlement. As such, the Commission believes that the Proposed Rule
Change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\31\ DTC proposes
to share Status Information with Matching Utilities so that Matching
Utilities can help facilitate the resolution of Exceptions by using
their central platform. Currently the parties to Institutional
Transactions must communicate in an inefficient, time-consuming manner
to resolve an Exception. Because the increased efficiency in
communicating Status Information could help facilitate enhanced
communication among the parties to an Eligible Transaction and address
an Exception (i.e., so that the Eligible Transaction may meet DTC
controls and be processed for end-of-day settlement), the Commission
believes that the Proposed Rule Change could benefit all of the parties
to an Eligible Transaction. As a result, the Commission believes that
the Proposed Rule Change would not impose any burden on competition
regarding fees not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As originally proposed, the Proposed Rule Change would provide
Status Information to the Matching Utility that submitted the
transaction to DTC or with respect to which its Control Number is
included in transaction details provided by a Participant. Further, a
Matching Utility would be required to sign an agreement that the
Matching Utility will not distribute Status Information to any third
party other than (a) the Participants indicated on the Status
Information and (b) the institutional customers that are counterparties
to the transaction for which the Participants indicated on the Status
Information are acting with respect to the transaction. One commenter
opposes the original proposal limiting access to the Status Information
only to Matching Utilities that either submitted the transaction to DTC
or whose Control Number is included in the transaction detailed
provided to DTC by a Participant, because this original proposal does
not provide for transmitting Status Information to a linked Matching
Utility, over the interface or otherwise.\32\ The commenter states that
by restricting distribution of Status Information to the Matching
Utility that submits a transaction to DTC or whose Control Number is
included in transaction details provided by a Participant on whose
behalf it confirmed the trade, the original proposal would impede the
free flow of information between Matching Utilities, thereby further
thwarting the development of a competitive interoperating environment
for central trade matching services.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ SS&C Letter II at 2-3.
    \33\ SS&C Letter II at 2-3; SS&C Letter I at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, DTC states that it does not intend for the Proposed
Rule Change to preclude sharing of Status Information among
interoperating Matching Utilities in a circumstance where both Matching
Utilities are acting for a party to the transaction.\34\ To address the
commenter's concern, DTC amended the proposal to directly provide
Status Information to a Matching Utility for each transaction submitted
to DTC to which a customer of the Matching Utility is a party to the
transaction and matched the transaction via the Matching Utility.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ DTC Letter II at 4.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as amended,
would not impose any burden on competition on the future development of
an interoperability arrangement among Matching Utilities not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Proposed
Rule Change would allow any Matching Utilities involved in a
transaction to access Status Information directly from DTC, regardless
of whether a Matching Utility's control number was submitted with the
transaction. The Commission understands that under the Proposed Rule
Change, the method by which a Matching Utility accesses Status
Information would differ based on whether the Matching Utility's
control number is associated with the transaction (i.e., if a Matching
Utility's control number is not included in the transaction as
submitted, the Matching Utility would be required to submit an
indicator to DTC to notify DTC that a customer of the Matching Utility
is a party to the transaction). The Commission believes that providing
distinct methods for Matching Utilities to access the same Status
Information directly from DTC should help ensure that all interested
Matching Utilities can access such information regardless of which
Matching Utility submits the transaction to DTC. Therefore, the
Commission believes that these different methods of access would not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the Act.
Fees Associated With the Provision of Status Information
    As discussed above, the Proposed Rule Change would authorize DTC to
charge (i) a Status Information Fee to a Matching Utility that receives
Status Information as set forth in the DTC Fee Guide through a future
proposed rule change and (ii) the reasonable cost to cover for the
development of the mechanism by DTC to provide Status Information to a
Matching Utility even if that Matching Utility did not submit a
transaction to DTC.
    One commenter opposes the proposal to charge a fee for Status
Information on both procedural and substantive grounds.\36\ As a
procedural matter, the commenter states that any fee for Status
Information should be considered by the Commission in the Proposed Rule
Change. The commenter notes that once DTC's authority to impose a fee
on a Matching Utility for Status Information is established, any
subsequent filing to implement that authority by setting the amount of
the fee will become effective immediately upon filing with the

Commission.\37\ The commenter states that ``[t]he Commission's
authority to temporarily suspend the fee, once implemented, is no
substitute for a careful consideration at this juncture of the
important issues [it] has raised.'' \38\ Substantively, the commenter
states any fee charged to ITP would be merely a paper transfer of
revenue from one corporate affiliate to another, while a fee charged to
the commenter, another Matching Utility, would be a true cost with real
consequences.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See SS&C Letter II at 3-4; SS&C Letter I at 4-5.
    \37\ See SS&C Letter II at 3; see also 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78s(b)(3).
    \38\ See SS&C Letter II at 3-4.
    \39\ See SS&C Letter II at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the following reasons, the Commission believes that the
Proposed Rule Change would not impose any burden on competition
regarding fees that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. As a procedural matter, not including the fee
for Status Information in the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
the Act. Sections 19(b)(3)(A) and (C) of the Act \40\ specifically
provide for the process to which the commenter objects, i.e., a
proposed rule change that establishes a fee imposed by a self-
regulatory organization on any person, whether or not the person is a
member of the organization, shall take effect upon filing with the
Commission and be subject to potential suspension if the Commission
determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the Commission
believes that DTC choosing to include any associated fee in a
subsequent proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. Sec.  78s(b)(3)(A) and (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Substantively, it is consistent with the Act to charge fees to both
affiliates and third-party competitors of the affiliate. The commenter
argues that the mere existence of a fee is problematic because DTC
would be charging that fee to its affiliate which renders the fee a
``paper transfer'' of revenue.\41\ However, the Commission believes
that, under the Act, any fee charged by DTC for this service should be
equitably allocated among potential users, including users that are
affiliates of DTC. \42\ Therefore, it would not be reasonable for DTC
to not charge a fee for this service solely because its affiliate may
be a user of the service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See SS&C Letter I at 5; SS&C Letter II at 4.
    \42\ Although Section 17A(b)(3)(D) applies to clearing agency
fees on participants, the Commission believes that it is also
instructive here with respect to fees on users of a service provided
by a clearing agency. 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission notes that the Proposed Rule Change would
also provide that a Matching Utility agree to pay DTC for the
reasonable cost of DTC's development of the mechanism necessary for DTC
to directly provide Status Information to a Matching Utility for each
transaction to which a customer of the Matching Utility is a party and
matched via the Matching Utility. As noted above, the Commission notes
that this approach, which applies to all Matching Utilities, is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D),\43\ which requires the equitable
allocation of fees among a clearing agency's participants. The
Commission also notes that it would review the future fee filing for
consistency with this provision and all other relevant Exchange Act
provisions, as well as the standard set forth by DTC in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, for all of the above reasons, the Commission believes
that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(I)
of the Act.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Accelerated Approval of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

    As noted above, in Amendment No. 1, as compared to the original
proposal, DTC proposes to provide status information to a Matching
Utility even if that matching utility did not submit a transaction to
DTC.\45\ As noted above, in Amendment No. 2, as compared to the
original proposal, DTC proposes to delay the implementation timeframe
of the proposal to until DTC has submitted a subsequent fee filing.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Amendment No. 1, supra note 10.
    \46\ Amendment No. 1, supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Commission believes that the amendments do
not raise any regulatory issues and are consistent with the Act because
Amendment No. 1 provides different methods for Matching Utilities to
access Status Information directly from DTC to help ensure that
Matching Utilities can access Status Information regardless of which
Matching Utility submits the transaction to DTC. Likewise, Amendment
No. 2 would provide more time before the proposal would go into effect.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the
proposal raise no novel regulatory issues, that they are reasonably
designed to protect investors and the public interest, and that they
are consistent with the requirements of the Act. Accordingly, the
Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\47\ to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular, with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\48\ that proposed rule change SR-DTC-2018-010, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and it hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17232 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P