[Federal Register: May 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 21018-21031]
[DOCID:fr06my09-144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-9030; 34-59850/April 30, 2009]

Order Making Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Adjustments to the Fee Rates
Applicable Under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 13(e), 14(g), 31(b), and 31(c) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934

I. Background

    The Commission collects fees under various provisions of the
securities laws. Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'') requires the Commission to collect fees from
issuers on the registration of securities.\1\ Section 13(e) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') requires the
Commission to collect fees on specified repurchases of securities.\2\
Section 14(g) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to collect
fees on proxy solicitations and statements in corporate control
transactions.\3\ Finally, Sections 31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act
require national securities exchanges and national securities
associations, respectively, to pay fees to the Commission on
transactions in specified securities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(e).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78n(g).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee(b) and (c). In addition, Section 31(d) of the
Exchange Act requires the Commission to collect assessments from
national securities exchanges and national securities associations
for round turn transactions on security futures. 15 U.S.C. 78ee(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act (``Fee Relief
Act'') \5\ amended Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections
13(e), 14(g), and 31 of the Exchange Act to require the Commission to
make annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable under these
sections for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011, and one final
adjustment to fix the fee rates under these sections for fiscal year
2012 and beyond.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Public Law No. 107-123, 115 Stat. 2390 (2002).
    \6\ See 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(5), 77f(b)(6), 78m(e)(5), 78m(e)(6),
78n(g)(5), 78n(g)(6), 78ee(j)(1), and 78ee(j)(3). Section 31(j)(2)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78ee(j)(2), also requires the
Commission, in specified circumstances, to make a mid-year
adjustment to the fee rates under Sections 31(b) and (c) of the
Exchange Act in fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Adjustment to the Fee Rates Applicable
Under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e) and 14(g)
of the Exchange Act

    Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Act requires the Commission to
make an annual adjustment to the fee rate applicable under Section 6(b)
of the Securities Act in each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011.\7\
In those same fiscal years, Sections 13(e)(5) and 14(g)(5) of the
Exchange Act require the Commission to adjust the fee rates under
Sections 13(e) and 14(g) to a rate that is equal to the rate that is
applicable under Section 6(b). In other words, the annual adjustment to
the fee rate under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act also sets the
annual adjustment to the fee rates under Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of
the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The annual adjustments are designed to adjust the fee rate
in a given fiscal year so that, when applied to the aggregate
maximum offering price at which securities are proposed to be
offered for the fiscal year, it is reasonably likely to produce
total fee collections under Section 6(b) equal to the ``target
offsetting collection amount'' specified in Section 6(b)(11)(A) for
that fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6(b)(5) sets forth the method for determining the annual
adjustment to the fee rate under Section 6(b) for fiscal year 2010.
Specifically, the Commission must adjust the fee rate under Section
6(b) to a ``rate that, when applied to the baseline estimate of the
aggregate maximum offering prices for [fiscal year 2010], is reasonably
likely to produce aggregate fee collections under [Section 6(b)] that
are equal to the target offsetting collection amount for [fiscal year
2010].'' That is, the adjusted rate is determined by dividing the
``target offsetting collection amount'' for fiscal year 2010 by the
``baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering prices'' for
fiscal year 2010.
    Section 6(b)(11)(A) specifies that the ``target offsetting
collection amount'' for fiscal year 2010 is $334,000,000. Section
6(b)(11)(B) defines the ``baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum
offering price'' for fiscal year 2010 as ``the baseline estimate of the
aggregate maximum offering price at which securities are proposed to be
offered pursuant to registration statements filed with the Commission
during [fiscal year 2010] as determined by the Commission, after
consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of
Management and Budget. * * * ''
    To make the baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering
price for fiscal year 2010, the Commission is using the same
methodology it developed in consultation with the Congressional Budget
Office (``CBO'') and Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') to
project aggregate offering price for purposes of the fiscal year 2009
annual adjustment. Using this methodology, the Commission determines
the ``baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price'' for
fiscal year 2010 to be $4,683,504,368,794.\8\ Based on this estimate,
the Commission calculates the fee rate for fiscal 2010 to be $71.30 per
million. This adjusted fee rate applies to Section 6(b) of the
Securities Act, as well as to Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Appendix A explains how we determined the ``baseline
estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price'' for fiscal year
2010 using our methodology, and then shows the purely arithmetical
process of calculating the fiscal year 2010 annual adjustment based
on that estimate. The appendix includes the data used by the
Commission in making its ``baseline estimate of the aggregate
maximum offering price'' for fiscal year 2010.

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

III. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Adjustment to the Fee Rates Applicable
Under Sections 31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act

    Section 31(b) of the Exchange Act requires each national securities
exchange to pay the Commission a fee at a rate, as adjusted by our
order pursuant to Section 31(j)(2),\9\ which currently is $25.70 per
million of the aggregate dollar amount of sales of specified securities
transacted on the exchange. Similarly, Section 31(c) requires each
national securities association to pay the Commission a fee at the same
adjusted rate on the aggregate dollar amount of sales of specified
securities transacted by or through any member of the association
otherwise than on an exchange. Section 31(j)(1) requires the Commission
to make annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable under Sections
31(b) and (c) for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Order Making Fiscal 2009 Mid-Year Adjustment to the Fee
Rates Applicable Under Sections 31(b) and (c) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rel. No. 34-59477 (February 27, 2009), 74 FR
9644 (March 5, 2009).
    \10\ The annual adjustments, as well as the mid-year adjustments
required in specified circumstances under Section 31(j)(2) in fiscal
years 2002 through 2011, are designed to adjust the fee rates in a
given fiscal year so that, when applied to the aggregate dollar
volume of sales for the fiscal year, they are reasonably likely to
produce total fee collections under Section 31 equal to the ``target
offsetting collection amount'' specified in Section 31(l)(1) for
that fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 31(j)(1) specifies the method for determining the annual
adjustment for fiscal year 2010. Specifically, the Commission must
adjust the rates under Sections 31(b) and (c) to a ``uniform adjusted
rate that, when applied to the baseline estimate of the aggregate
dollar amount of sales for [fiscal year 2010], is reasonably likely to
produce aggregate fee collections under [Section 31] (including
assessments collected under [Section 31(d)]) that are equal to the
target offsetting collection amount for [fiscal year 2010].''
    Section 31(l)(1) specifies that the ``target offsetting collection
amount'' for fiscal year 2010 is $1,161,000,000. Section 31(l)(2)
defines the ``baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of
sales'' as ``the baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of
sales of securities * * * to be transacted on each national securities
exchange and by or through any member of each national securities
association (otherwise than on a national securities exchange) during
[fiscal year 2010] as determined by the Commission, after consultation
with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and
Budget. * * * ''
    To make the baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of
sales for fiscal year 2010, the Commission is using the same
methodology it developed in consultation with the CBO and OMB to
project dollar volume for purposes of prior fee adjustments.\11\ Using
this methodology, the Commission calculates the baseline estimate of
the aggregate dollar amount of sales for fiscal year 2010 to be
$84,822,877,437,603. Based on this estimate, and an estimated
collection of $9,966 in assessments on security futures transactions
under Section 31(d) in fiscal year 2010, the uniform adjusted rate for
fiscal year 2010 is $12.70 per million.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Appendix B explains how we determined the ``baseline
estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of sales'' for fiscal year
2010 using our methodology, and then shows the purely arithmetical
process of calculating the fiscal year 2010 annual adjustment based
on that estimate. The appendix also includes the data used by the
Commission in making its ``baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar
amount of sales'' for fiscal year 2010.
    \12\ The calculation of the adjusted fee rate assumes that the
current fee rate of $25.70 per million will apply through October
31, 2009, due to the operation of the effective date provision
contained in Section 31(j)(4)(A) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Effective Dates of the Annual Adjustments

    Section 6(b)(8)(A) of the Securities Act provides that the fiscal
year 2010 annual adjustment to the fee rate applicable under Section
6(b) of the Securities Act shall take effect on the later of October 1,
2009, or five days after the date on which a regular appropriation to
the Commission for fiscal year 2010 is enacted.\13\ Sections
13(e)(8)(A) and 14(g)(8)(A) of the Exchange Act provide for the same
effective date for the annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable
under Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(8)(A).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(e)(8)(A) and 78n(g)(8)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 31(j)(4)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that the fiscal
year 2010 annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable under Sections
31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act shall take effect on the later of
October 1, 2009, or 30 days after the date on which a regular
appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2010 is enacted.

V. Conclusion

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and
Sections 13(e), 14(g), and 31 of the Exchange Act,\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b), 78m(e), 78n(g), and 78ee(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is hereby ordered that the fee rates applicable under Section
6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange
Act shall be $71.30 per million effective on the later of October 1,
2009, or five days after the date on which a regular appropriation to
the Commission for fiscal year 2010 is enacted; and
    It is further ordered that the fee rates applicable under Sections
31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act shall be $12.70 per million effective
on the later of October 1, 2009, or 30 days after the date on which a
regular appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2010 is
enacted.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.

Appendix A

    With the passage of the Investor and Capital Markets Relief Act,
Congress has, among other things, established a target amount of monies
to be collected from fees charged to issuers based on the value of
their registrations. This appendix provides the formula for determining
such fees, which the Commission adjusts annually. Congress has mandated
that the Commission determine these fees based on the ``aggregate
maximum offering prices,'' which measures the aggregate dollar amount
of securities registered with the Commission over the course of the
year. In order to maximize the likelihood that the amount of monies
targeted by Congress will be collected, the fee rate must be set to
reflect projected aggregate maximum offering prices. As a percentage,
the fee rate equals the ratio of the target amounts of monies to the
projected aggregate maximum offering prices.
    For 2010, the Commission has estimated the aggregate maximum
offering prices by projecting forward the trend established in the
previous decade. More specifically, an ARIMA model was used to forecast
the value of the aggregate maximum offering prices for months
subsequent to March 2009, the last month for which the Commission has
data on the aggregate maximum offering prices.
    The following sections describe this process in detail.

A. Baseline Estimate of the Aggregate Maximum Offering Prices for
Fiscal Year 2010

    First, calculate the aggregate maximum offering prices (AMOP) for
each month in the sample (March 1999-March 2009). Next, calculate the
percentage change in the AMOP from month to month.
    Model the monthly percentage change in AMOP as a first order moving
average

process. The moving average approach allows one to model the effect
that an exceptionally high (or low) observation of AMOP tends to be
followed by a more ``typical'' value of AMOP.
    Use the estimated moving average model to forecast the monthly
percent change in AMOP. These percent changes can then be applied to
obtain forecasts of the total dollar value of registrations. The
following is a more formal (mathematical) description of the procedure:
    1. Begin with the monthly data for AMOP. The sample spans ten
years, from March 1999 to March 2009.
    2. Divide each month's AMOP (column C) by the number of trading
days in that month (column B) to obtain the average daily AMOP (AAMOP,
column D).
    3. For each month t, the natural logarithm of AAMOP is reported in
column E.
    4. Calculate the change in log(AAMOP) from the previous month as
[Delta]t = log(AAMOPt) -
log(AAMOPt-1). This approximates the percentage change.
    5. Estimate the first order moving average model
[Delta]t = [alpha] + [beta]et-1 + et,
where et denotes the forecast error for month t. The
forecast error is simply the difference between the one-month ahead
forecast and the actual realization of [Delta]t. The
forecast error is expressed as et = [Delta]t -
[alpha] - [beta]et-1. The model can be estimated using
standard commercially available software such as SAS or Eviews. Using
least squares, the estimated parameter values are [alpha] = 0.0003187
and [beta] = -0.88747.
    6. For the month of April 2009 forecast [Delta]t=4/09 =
[alpha] + [beta]et=3/09. For all subsequent months, forecast
[Delta]t = [alpha].
    7. Calculate forecasts of log(AAMOP). For example, the forecast of
log(AAMOP) for June 2009 is given by FLAAMOPt=6/09 =
log(AAMOPt=3/09) + [Delta]t=4/09 +
[Delta]t=5/09 + [Delta]t=6/09.
    8. Under the assumption that et is normally distributed,
the n-step ahead forecast of AAMOP is given by exp(FLAAMOPt
+ [sigma]n\2\/2), where [sigma]n denotes the
standard error of the n-step ahead forecast.
    9. For June 2009, this gives a forecast AAMOP of $18.4 Billion
(Column I), and a forecast AMOP of $404.4 Billion (Column J).
    10. Iterate this process through September 2010 to obtain a
baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering prices for fiscal
year 2010 of $4,683,504,368,794.

B. Using the Forecasts From A To Calculate the New Fee Rate

    1. Using the data from Table A, estimate the aggregate maximum
offering prices between 10/1/09 and 9/30/10 to be $4,683,504,368,794.
    2. The rate necessary to collect the target $334,000,000 in fee
revenues set by Congress is then calculated as: $334,000,000 /
$4,683,504,368,794 = 0.00007131.
    3. Round the result to the seventh decimal point, yielding a rate
of .0000713 (or $71.30 per million).
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.079

BILLING CODE 8010-01-C

Appendix B

    With the passage of the Investor and Capital Markets Relief Act,
Congress has, among other things, established a target amount of monies
to be collected from fees charged to investors based on the value of
their transactions. This appendix provides the formula for determining
such fees, which the Commission adjusts annually, and may adjust semi-
annually.\16\ In order to maximize the likelihood that the amount of
monies targeted by Congress will be collected, the fee rate must be set
to reflect projected dollar transaction volume on the securities
exchanges and certain over-the-counter markets over the course of the
year. As a percentage, the fee rate equals the ratio of the target
amounts of monies to the projected dollar transaction volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Congress requires that the Commission make a mid-year
adjustment to the fee rate if four months into the fiscal year it
determines that its forecasts of aggregate dollar volume are
reasonably likely to be off by 10% or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For 2010, the Commission has estimated dollar transaction volume by
projecting forward the trend established in the previous decade. More
specifically, dollar transaction volume was forecasted for months
subsequent to March 2009, the last month for which the Commission has
data on transaction volume.
    The following sections describe this process in detail.

A. Baseline Estimate of the Aggregate Dollar Amount of Sales for Fiscal
Year 2010

    First, calculate the average daily dollar amount of sales (ADS) for
each month in the sample (March 1999-March 2009). The monthly aggregate
dollar amount of sales (exchange plus certain over-the-counter markets)
is presented in column C of Table B.
    Next, calculate the change in the natural logarithm of ADS from
month to month. The average monthly percentage growth of ADS over the
entire sample is 0.010 and the standard deviation is 0.130. Assuming
the monthly percentage change in ADS follows a random walk, calculating
the expected monthly percentage growth rate for the full sample is
straightforward. The expected monthly percentage growth rate of ADS is
1.8%.
    Now, use the expected monthly percentage growth rate to forecast
total dollar volume. For example, one can use the ADS for March 2009
($267,521,624,488) to forecast ADS for April 2009 ($272,427,017,936 =
$267,521,624,488 x 1.018).\17\ Multiply by the number of trading days
in April 2009 (21) to obtain a forecast of the total dollar volume for
the month ($5,720,967,376,649). Repeat the method to generate forecasts
for subsequent months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The value 1.018 has been rounded. All computations are done
with the unrounded value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The forecasts for total dollar volume are in column G of Table B.
The following is a more formal (mathematical) description of the
procedure:
    1. Divide each month's total dollar volume (column C) by the number
of trading days in that month (column B) to obtain the average daily
dollar volume (ADS, column D).
    2. For each month t, calculate the change in ADS from the previous
month as [Delta]t = log (ADSt/ADSt-1),
where log (x) denotes the natural logarithm of x.
    3. Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the series
{[Delta]1, [Delta]2, ... ,
[Delta]120{time} . These are given by [mu] = 0.010 and
[sigma] = 0.130, respectively.

    4. Assume that the natural logarithm of ADS follows a random walk,
so that [Delta]s and [Delta]t are statistically
independent for any two months s and t.
    5. Under the assumption that [Delta]t is normally
distributed, the expected value of ADSt/ADSt-1 is
given by exp ([mu] + [sigma]\2\/2), or on average ADSt =
1.018 x ADSt-1.
    6. For April 2009, this gives a forecast ADS of 1.018 x
$267,521,624,488 = $272,427,017,936. Multiply this figure by the 21
trading days in April 2009 to obtain a total dollar volume forecast of
$5,720,967,376,649.
    7. For May 2009, multiply the April 2009 ADS forecast by 1.018 to
obtain a forecast ADS of $277,422,358,822. Multiply this figure by the
20 trading days in May 2009 to obtain a total dollar volume forecast of
$5,548,447,176,435.
    8. Repeat this procedure for subsequent months.

B. Using the Forecasts From A To Calculate the New Fee Rate

    1. Use Table B to estimate fees collected for the period 10/1/09
through 10/31/09. The projected aggregate dollar amount of sales for
this period is $6,683,755,563,790. Projected fee collections at the
current fee rate of 0.0000257 are $171,772,518.
    2. Estimate the amount of assessments on securities futures
products collected during 10/1/09 and 9/30/10 to be $9,966 by
projecting a 1.8% monthly increase from a base of $663 in March 2009.
    3. Subtract the amounts $171,772,518 and $9,966 from the target
offsetting collection amount set by Congress of $1,161,000,000 leaving
$989,217,516 to be collected on dollar volume for the period 11/1/09
through 9/30/10.
    4. Use Table B to estimate dollar volume for the period 11/1/09
through 9/30/10. The estimate is $78,139,121,873,813. Finally, compute
the fee rate required to produce the additional $989,217,516 in
revenue. This rate is $989,217,516 divided by $78,139,121,873,813 or
0.0000126597.
    5. Round the result to the seventh decimal point, yielding a rate
of .0000127 (or $12.70 per million).
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY09.084

[FR Doc. E9-10401 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-C


United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet for the Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for Discharges from the Application of Pesticides
Form Approved
OMB No.
2040-0004
This worksheet is for any Operator who is also a Decision-maker required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and is a small entity, as defined in Appendix A of the Pesticide General Permit (PGP). The information on this worksheet must be retained for each pesticide application activity.
A. General Information
1. Operator Name:

NPDES Permit Tracking Number:

2. Worksheet Preparer Name:

 3. Pest Management Area:	# __  of ## ____
 4. Pest Management Area Name:
 5. Indicate the pesticide use pattern for the Pest Management Area:
  a.  Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pests	b.  Weed and Algae Pests	c.  Animal Pests	d.  Forest Canopy Pests
 6. For each treatment area (use additional pages for each treatment area):
  a.	Provide a description of the treatment area within this Pest Management Area, including location description:

  b. 	Size of treatment area (in acres or linear feet): _____ acres or ______ linear feet.
  c.	Name or location of any waters of the United States to which discharges occurred:

B. Pest Evaluation
 1. Identify the target pest(s) and explain why pest control is needed:

 2. Describe Pest Management Measure(s) implemented before the first pesticide application:

C. Pesticide Application
1. Name and contact information for pesticide Applicator(s):
Company Name:

Street:

City:

State:

Zip Code:

                                       -

Contact Name:

Phone:

                                       -

                                       -

                                     Ext.

E-mail:

2. Pesticide application start date:

                                       /

                                       /

Pesticide application end date:

                                       /

                                       /

3. Name of each pesticide product used, EPA registration number, and quantity of pesticide applied (as packaged or as formulated): Circle lbs or gallons.
Product Name

Product Name

Product Name

EPA Reg. No.

EPA Reg. No.

EPA Reg. No.

Quantity
(lbs or gallons)

Quantity
(lbs or gallons)

Quantity
(lbs or gallons)

Application method:

Application method:

Application method:

 4. Was visual monitoring conducted during pesticide application and/or post-application?  Yes.   No. If no, describe why not?

 5. Were any adverse effects identified during visual monitoring?  Yes.   No. If yes, describe.

D. Certification
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. On the basis of my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information contained is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for recording false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Printed Name:

Title:

E-Mail:

Signature/Responsible Official:

                                                                          Date:

                                       /

                                       /

Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet Preparer (Complete if worksheet was prepared by someone other than the certifier)
Preparer Name:

Organization:

Phone:

                                       -

                                       -

                                     Ext.

                                                                          Date:

                                       /

                                       /

E-Mail:

Instructions for Completing the Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet (PDEW) for the Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for Discharges from the Application of Pesticides

Who Must Complete a PDEW?
Any Operator, who is a Decision-maker required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and is a small entity as defined in Appendix A of the permit may complete this Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet (PDEW) to meet the requirements of Part 7.4 of the PGP.
Pest management area, as defined in Appendix A of the permit, can be a large area (e.g., an entire town) or a very specific well-defined management area (e.g., a lake). Thus, a pest management area can have one or more treatment areas. Operators required to retain the information contained on this worksheet must do so for each treatment area. For treatment areas with the same or similar pests, the Operator can use one worksheet to document pest management activities for those multiple treatment areas.
When to Complete a PDEW?
Before any pesticide application, any Operator using this form to meet its obligations under the PGP must complete Section B of this worksheet. Section C, except for the pesticide application end date and total quantity of pesticide applied, must be completed as soon as possible but no later than 14 days after the first pesticide application. The total quantity of pesticide applied and the pesticide application end date must be completed as soon as possible but no later than 14 days after completion of pesticide application for this project.
Any Operator using this form to meet its obligations under the PGP must retain this worksheet for at least 3 years from the date that coverage is granted under the PGP or when the permit expires or is terminated. These Operators must make this worksheet available to EPA, including an authorized representative of EPA, upon request.
Completing the PDEW
To complete this form, type or print in uppercase letters in the approriate areas only. Make sure you complete all questions.
Section A. General Information
1.	Enter the Operator's full legal name and the existing NPDES Permit Tracking Number assigned by EPA's NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT) or EPA's Pesticides Processing Center. You can find the tracking number assigned to your previous NOI using EPA's NeT.
2.	Enter the full legal name of the person completing the form.
3.	Section A should be completed for each Pest Management Area. Indicate which Pest Management Area out of the total number of Pest Management Areas for which the section is being completed (i.e., Pest Management Area 1 of 10 total Pest Management Areas).
4.	Enter the name of the Pest Management Area.
5.	Identify the pesticide use pattern(s) for the Pest Management Area.
6.	For each treatment area, provide a brief description and location description of the treatment area within the Pest Management Area; size of the treatment area in acres or linear feet, and name or location of any waters of the United States to which discharges occur.
Section B. Pest Evaluation
1.	Identify the target pest(s) and provide a brief description of why pest control is needed.
2.	Provide a brief description of any Pest Management Measure(s) implemented before pesticide application. For example, identify if you have performed physical control techniques such as pulling weeds, removing breeding habitat, or trapping animals.
Section C. Pesticide Application
1.	Provide the company name and contact information of the pesticide Applicator.
2.	Enter the date that the pesticide application began and ended.
3.	Enter the name of each pesticide product used including the EPA Pesticide Registraion Number, the quanity of pesticide applied, and the method used to apply the pesticide (e.g., fixed wing aircraft, backpack sprayer).
4.	Indicate if visual monitoring was conducted during the pesticide application and/or post-application. If visual monitoring was not performed, provide a brief description of why visual monitoring was not conducted.
5.	Indicate if there were any adverse effects identifed during visual monitoring. Provide a brief decription of any adverse effects that were identified.
Section D. Certification
Enter the certifier's printed name and title. Sign and date the form. For more information about the certification statement and signature, see 40 CFR 122.41(k). (CAUTION: An unsigned or undated form will not be accepted.) Federal statutes provide for severe penalties for submitting false information. Federal regulations require this application to be signed as follows:
For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer, means:
(i) 	president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation, or
(ii) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided the manager is authorized to make management decisions that govern the operation of the regulated activity including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long-term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for permit application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures;
For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor; or
For a municipal, state, federal, or other public facility: by either a principal executive or ranking elected official.
If the PDEW was prepared by someone other than the certifier (for example, if the PDEW was prepared by a consultant for the certifier's signature), include the name, organization, phone number and e-mail address of the PDEW preparer.
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour or 60 minutes per response.
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed Pesticide Discharge Evaluation Worksheet to this address.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18401-18402]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07823]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0667 FRL-9925-67]

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's receipt of an application 59639-
EUP-RI from Valent U.S.A. Corp., requesting an experimental use permit
(EUP) for Clothianidin. The Agency has determined that the permit may
be of regional and national significance. Therefore, because of the
potential significance, EPA is seeking comments on this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0667, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not

attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to
field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to
obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides
if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more of land or
one acre or more of water.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the
following EUP application may be of regional and national significance,
and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:
    Submitter: Valent U.S.A. Corp., (59639-EUP-RI).
    Pesticide Chemical: Clothianidin.
    Summary of Request: Valent has submitted an application for an
Experimental Use Permit (EUP) registration for Clothianidin as a Soil
Applied Treatment for Corn (field, pop, sweet) to evaluate the
effectiveness on Corn Rootworm. The proposed use dates are May 15, 2015
through May 16, 2016. The registrant is requesting use on a combined
total of 500 Acres in Minnesota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
    Following the review of the application and any comments and data
received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to
issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under
which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced
in the Federal Register.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 27, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-07823 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 72803]
[DOCID:fr07de05-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER05-1534-001]

American Electric Power Service Corporation; Notice of Filing

November 25, 2005.
    On November 14, 2005, American Electric Power Service Corporation
(AEP), as agent for Appalachian Power Company submitted Second Revised
Substitute Sheet No. 13 to the Interconnection and Local Delivery
Service Agreement No. 1252 between Blue Ridge Power Agency, Inc. and
AEP.
    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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 on-line 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 December 5, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6923 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 22787-22788]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-74]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9143-6]

Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement; Request for Public
Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed settlement agreement, to address a lawsuit filed by Louisiana
Environmental Action Network and Concerned Citizens of Livingston
Parish: Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. Jackson, Civil Action
No. 1:09-cv-01943-HHK (D. D.C.). On or about October 13, 2009,
Louisiana Environmental Action Network and Concerned Citizens of
Livingston Parish filed a complaint alleging that EPA Administrator
Jackson failed to fulfill a mandatory duty to respond to an
administrative petition to object to issuance of air permit No. 1740-
00025V1 to Waste Management for the Woodside Landfill in Walker,
Livingston Parish Louisiana (the ``Woodside Petition'') within the 60
days specified in section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act and asking the
court to enter judgment: (i) Declaring that EPA's failure to perform
its nondiscretionary duty to grant or deny the administrative petition
within 60 days is a violation of Clean Air Act section 505(b); and,
(ii) Ordering EPA to grant or deny the administrative petition within
60 calendar days of the court's ruling. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement, EPA agrees to sign a response to the Woodside
Petition no later than May 28, 2010.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by June 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2010-0400 online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Vetter, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement or Consent
Decree

    On October 13, 2009, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, a non-
profit conservation organization, and Concerned Citizens of Livingston
Parish, a non-profit corporation, (hereinafter collectively ``LEAN'')
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia (Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-01943-HHK). In the complaint,
LEAN alleges that EPA has failed to fulfill a mandatory duty to respond
to an administrative petition to object to issuance of air permit No.
1740-00025V1 to Waste Management for the Woodside Landfill in Walker,
Livingston Parish Louisiana (the ``Woodside Petition'') within the 60
days specified in section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.
    The EPA and LEAN chose to enter into a proposed settlement
agreement to avoid protracted and costly litigation and to preserve
judicial resources. Under the terms of the proposed settlement
agreement, EPA is to sign a response to the Woodside Petition no later
than May 28, 2010.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations
that indicate that such

consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that
consent to the settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of
the agreement will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the settlement agreement?

    Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2010-0400 which contains a copy of the
settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for
public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number, then
select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: April 23, 2010.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-10154 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 8369-8370]
[DOCID:fr26fe07-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP07-74-000, CP07-75-000, CP07-76-000, CP07-77-000]

Sonora Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Applications

February 15, 2007.

    Take notice that on January 31, 2007, Sonora Pipeline, LLC
(Sonora), 1862 West Bitters, Bldg. 1, San Antonio, Texas
78248, filed an application in Docket No. CP07-75-000 pursuant to
section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's
regulations requesting issuance of an order and a Presidential Permit
authorizing Sonora to site, construct, operate, and maintain two
bidirectional border crossing facilities in Hidalgo County, Texas.

    Also take notice that on January 31, 2007, Sonora filed pursuant to
Section 7(c) of the NGA and the Commission's regulations: (1) An
application in Docket No. CP07-74-000 for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and operation of
20.2 miles of 30-inch pipeline, the Mission Line, and 8.7 miles of 30-
inch pipeline, the Progresso Line, which will extend from the two
proposed border crossing facilities; (2) an application in Docket No.
CP07-76-000 for a blanket construction certificate under Part 157,
Subpart F of the Commission's regulations; and (3) an application in
Docket No. CP07-77-000 for a blanket transportation certificate under
Part 284 Subpart G of the Commission's regulations.
    Take further notice that certain additional information is
required, and Commission staff has identified this information to the
applicant. To the extent that such information is not filed with the
Secretary by February 20, 2007, Sonora's application is subject to
rejection pursuant to 18 CFR 157.8 (c).
    These filings are available for review at the Commission's
Washington, DC offices or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket number,

excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Toll-free: 1-

866-208-3676; or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding these applications should be directed to
James B. Smith, Sonora Pipeline, LLC, 1862 West Bitters, Bldg.
1, San Antonio, Texas 78248, or phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On June 6, 2005, the Commission staff granted Sonora's request to
utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF05-15-000 to
staff activities involving Sonora's project. Now, as of the filing of
Sonora's applications on January 31, 2007, the Pre-Filing Process for
this project has officially concluded. And while the PF Docket Number
is now closed, all of the information contained in the Pre-Filing
Process will become part of the proceeding. From this time forward,
Sonora's proceeding will be conducted in Docket Nos. CP07-74-000, CP07-
75-000, CP07-76-000, and CP07-77-000 as noted in the caption of this
Notice. All future correspondence should refer to these CP docket
numbers only.
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this Project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should file with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR
157.10) by the comment date, below. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments
considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two
copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project and/
or associated pipeline. The Commission will consider these comments in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a
comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments
in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to
the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 285.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    Comment Date: March 8, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3191 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 8 (Friday, January 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2390-2391]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-32-000]

CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc., Michael E. Boyd, Robert
M. Sarvey, v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Contra Costa Generating
Station LLC for the Oakley Generating Station; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on December 28, 2012, pursuant to the Federal
Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824e, 825e, and 825h, (2012) and Rule
206, 16 CFR 385.206 (2012) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure
(Rules) of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), CAlifornians for Renewable Energy,
Inc.; Michael E. Boyd; and Robert M. Sarvey (Complainants) filed a
complaint against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E); and Contra
Costa Generating Station LLC for the Oakley Generating Station(Oakley)
(Respondents) concerning a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between
Oakley and PG&E wherein California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
approved an amended purchase and sale agreement (PSA).
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 on-line 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 24, 2013.

    Dated: December 31, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00409 Filed 1-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67446-67450]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27794]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76274; File No. SR-C2-2015-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Orders,
as Modified by Amendment No. 1

October 27, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 13, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') 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
Exchange. On October 26, 2015, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 6.13. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.13 regarding complex orders.
The proposed rule change (1) amends the rule provisions regarding the
initiation of a complex order auction (``COA''), (2) adds rule
provisions regarding the impact of certain incoming orders and changes
in the leg markets on an ongoing COA, and (3) amends the rule provision
related to the size of COA responses. The proposed rule change also
makes technical and other nonsubstantive changes.
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.13 and Interpretation
and Policy .02 regarding the initiation of a COA. Currently, C2 Rule
6.13(c)(2) provides that on receipt of a COA-eligible order \3\ and
request from the Participant representing the order that it be
processed through COA, the Exchange will send request for response
(``RFR'') message to all Participants who have elected to receive RFR
messages.\4\ Interpretation and Policy .02(a) states that with respect
to the initiation of a COA, Participants routing complex orders
directly to the complex order book (``COB'') may request that the
complex orders be processed by COA on a class-by-class basis.
Currently, all Participants have requested that all of their COA-
eligible orders process through COA upon entry into the System.
Therefore, rather than have Participants affirmatively request that
their COA-eligible orders COA, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
6.13(c)(2) to provide that incoming COA-eligible orders will COA by
default.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``COA-eligible order'' means a complex order that, as
determined by the Exchange on class-by-class basis, is eligible for
a COA considering the order's marketability (defined as a number of
tickets away from the current market), size, complex order type and
complex order origin types. Currently, in all classes, (a) only
complex orders with origin codes for public and professional
customers, (b) all complex order types except for immediate-or-
cancel (``IOC'') orders, and (c) marketable orders and ``tweeners''
limit orders bettering the same side of the derived net market are
eligible for COA.
    \4\ ``RFR'' stands for a ``request for responses'' that occurs
in the COA process. The RFR message will identify the component
series, the size and side of the market of the COA-eligible order
and any contingencies if applicable.
    \5\ This proposed rule change applies to all COA-eligible orders
in all classes. Stock-option orders are currently not permitted on
C2. The proposed rule change does not change the allocation or
priority provisions of complex orders. The proposed rule change also
makes a nonsubstantive change to move language regarding the System
sending RFR messages to the beginning of the provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes Participants should still maintain
flexibility to have their COA-eligible orders not COA. In order to
provide Participants with this flexibility, the proposed rule change
adds that, notwithstanding the foregoing, Participants may request on
an order-by-order basis that a COA-eligible order not COA (referred to
as a ``do-not-COA'' request). Because of this proposed rule change, the
Exchange deletes the language in Interpretation and Policy .02(a) that
indicates Participants may request that complex orders be processed by
COA on a class-by-class basis, as it is no longer necessary.\6\ While
the proposed rule change will not permit Participants to not COA orders
on a class-by-class basis, the Exchange believes that it will not
burden Participants because they have not requested this in the past.
Additionally, allowing Participants to make a do-not-COA request on an
order-by-order basis will better allow them to make decisions regarding
the handling of their orders based on market conditions at the time
they submit their orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposed rule change deletes Interpretation and Policy
.02(a) in order to include all information regarding the initiation
of a COA in subparagraph (c)(2) in the same place within the rule.
As a result, the proposed rule change deletes the lettering for
paragraph (b), which will be the only remaining provision in
Interpretation and Policy .02. The proposed rule change makes
nonsubstantive changes to Rule 6.13(c) as well, including a change
to conform heading punctuation to that used in other headings and
deletion of an extra space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule change provides that Participants may
include a do-not-COA request on complex orders, the proposed rule
change indicates that an order with a do-not-COA request may still COA
after it has rested on the COB pursuant to Interpretation and Policy
.02.\7\ The Exchange believes that Participants that include a do-not-
COA request for an order upon entry into the System do so to receive
automatic execution with the leg market or the COB, as applicable,
without the delay of the COA.\8\

However, if that does not occur and the order enters the COB to rest,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to COA the order after resting
on the COB (if that functionality has been activated for the class) to
try and obtain an execution even though the Participant initially did
not want the order to COA, as the COA will not delay execution at that
point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Interpretation and Policy .02(b) (which the proposed rule
change amends to become Interpretation and Policy .02) provides that
the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis to
automatically COA nonmarketable orders resting at the top of the COB
if they are within a number of ticks away from the current derived
net market.
    \8\ The current COA response time interval is 75 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that an order with a do-not-COA request will
still have execution opportunities. For example, such an order may
execute automatically upon entry into the System against the leg
markets or complex orders on the COB to the extent marketable (in
accordance with allocation rules set forth in Rule 6.13). Additionally,
pursuant to Rule 6.13(c)(8)(A), such an order on the opposite side of
and marketable against a COA-eligible order may trade against the COA-
eligible order if the System receives the order while a COA is ongoing.
A do-not-COA request merely provides the order with the opportunity to
execute upon entry into the System rather than after going through an
auction; the order will be subject to the same priority and allocation
rules.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A complex order that COAs upon entry into the System or
after resting in the COB will not miss any execution opportunities.
Pursuant to current Interpretation and Policy .02(b), an order that
COAs after resting on the COB will be nonmarketable and at the top
of the COB (and thus is the best-priced complex order at the time).
Rule 6.13(c)(8) (including as amended by this rule filing, as
further discussed below) describes how incoming complex orders
received during a COA impact the COA, including providing that the
COA'd order (which may be an order that COAs upon entry into the
System or after resting in the COB) will have time priority over the
incoming order, and ultimately provides that a COA'd order will not
lose execution opportunities to complex orders submitted during the
COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposed rule change adds subparagraphs Rule
6.13(c)(8)(D) and (E) to describe additional circumstances that will
cause a COA to end early.\10\ Proposed subparagraph (8)(D) describes
how an incoming order with a do-not-COA request or that is not COA-
eligible may impact an ongoing COA. Rule 6.13(c)(8) currently describes
the handling of unrelated complex orders that are received prior to the
expiration of the COA Response Time Interval.\11\ The proposed rule
change states that if an order with a do-not-COA request or an order
that is not COA-eligible is received prior to the expiration of the
Response Time Interval for the original COA and is on the same side of
the market and at a price better than or equal to the starting price,
then the original COA will end. Similar to the current provisions
regarding incoming unrelated COA-eligible orders on the same side of
the COA-eligible order (and at a price better than or equal to the
starting price), the processing of the original COA pursuant to
subparagraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6) remains the same \12\ with the
addition that the priority of the original COA-eligible order and the
order with the do-not-COA request or the order that is not COA-
eligible, as applicable, will be according to time priority. In other
words, the COA-eligible order would trade before the order with the do-
not-COA request or order that is not COA-eligible, regardless of the
price of each order.\13\ The purpose of this proposed provision (as it
is for the current provisions related to unrelated complex orders) is
to prevent the order with the do-not-COA request or the order that is
not COA-eligible,\14\ as applicable, from executing prior to the
original COA-eligible order, which, if it did not COA, may have
executed or entered the COB (because it would have entered the COB
first, it potentially would have priority over the incoming order to
the extent the algorithm applicable to the class considered time as a
factor for allocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
heading and introductory paragraph of subparagraph (c)(8).
    \11\ Rule 6.13(c)(8) states that incoming complex orders that
are received prior to the expiration of the response time interval
for a COA-eligible order (the ``original COA'') will impact the
original COA as follows: (a) Incoming complex orders that are
received prior to the expiration of the response time interval for
the original COA that are on the opposite side of the market and are
marketable against the starting price of the original COA-eligible
order will cause the original COA to end. The processing of the
original COA pursuant to subparagraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6) remains
the same. (The ``starting price'' means the better of the original
COA-eligible order's limit price or the best price, on a net debit
or credit basis, that existed in the Book or COB at the beginning of
the response time interval.) (b) Incoming COA-eligible orders that
are received prior to the expiration of the response time interval
for the original COA that are on the same side of the market, at the
same price or worse than the original COA-eligible order and better
than or equal to the starting price will join the original COA. The
processing of the original COA pursuant to subparagraphs (c)(4)
through (c)(6) remains the same with the addition that the priority
of the original COA-eligible order and incoming COA-eligible
order(s) will be according to time priority. (c) Incoming COA-
eligible orders that are received prior to the expiration of the
response time interval for the original COA that are on the same
side of the market and at a better price than the original COA-
eligible order will join the original COA, cause the original COA to
end, and a new COA to begin for any remaining balance on the
incoming COA-eligible order. The processing of the original COA
pursuant to subparagraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6) remains the same
with the addition that the priority of the original COA-eligible
order and incoming COA-eligible order will be according to time
priority.
    \12\ Rule 6.13(c)(4) through (c)(6) provides that at the
expiration of the response time interval, the COA-eligible order
will trade with orders and quotes in the following order: (a)
Individual orders and quotes residing in the book (with allocation
consistent with the trading priority applicable to incoming orders
in the individual leg components), (b) public customer complex
orders resting in the COB before, or that are received during, the
response time interval and public customer RFR responses (with
allocation according to time priority), (c) nonpublic customer
orders resting in the COB before the response time interval (with
allocation consistent with the trading priority applicable to
incoming orders in the individual leg components), and (d) nonpublic
customer orders resting in the COB that are received during the
response time interval and nonpublic customer responses (with
allocation consistent with the trading priority applicable to
incoming orders in the individual leg components). If a COA-eligible
order cannot be filled in whole or in a permissible ratio, the order
(or any remaining balance) will route to the COB. Thus, the
unrelated no-COA order or the order that is not COA-eligible will
have execution opportunities against the leg markets, complex orders
in the COB and COA responses, with priority after the original COA-
eligible order.
    \13\ This time priority is the same provided to COA-eligible
orders over incoming orders in subparagraphs (c)(8)(B) and (C).
    \14\ Current paragraph (c)(8) currently addresses the impact of
incoming COA-eligible orders on the same side of the original COA-
eligible order. The proposed rule change adds detail regarding the
impact of orders that are not COA-eligible and orders with a do-not-
COA request. The Exchange believes this provides a more complete
description in its rules regarding the impact of unrelated complex
orders received during a COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume that a COA-eligible order to buy with a net
limit price of $1.20 is received when the book or COB price (and thus
the starting price) is a net price bid of $1.10. The System will
initiate a COA at a net price of $1.10. An incoming order with a do-
not-COA request to buy at a net price of $1.10 or higher causes the
original COA to end. To the extent possible, the original COA-eligible
order will be filled first, and then the order with the do-not-COA
request will be filled (subject to the COA allocation provisions
describe above).\15\ Any remaining balance on the original COA-eligible
order or the incoming no-COA order will route to COB. The Exchange
believes this result to be appropriate, even if the incoming order with
the do-not-COA request had a higher buy price than the COA-eligible
order (e.g. $1.21), because if the COA-eligible order had not initiated
a COA and was marketable at the time it was entered (for example, if
the offer in the book was $1.15), it could have executed against the
book before the order was entered. Providing the COA-eligible order
with time priority is intended to ensure it does not miss an execution
opportunity it would have otherwise received if it had not initiated a
COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed subparagraph (8)(E) provides that if the leg markets were
not marketable against a COA-eligible order when the order entered the
System (and thus prior to the initiation of a COA) but

became marketable with the COA-eligible order prior to the expiration
of the Response Time Interval, it will cause the COA to end.\16\ The
processing of the original COA pursuant to subparagraphs (c)(4) through
(c)(6) remains the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This is similar to the result described in subparagraph
(8)(A), which provides that an incoming complex order on the
opposite side of the market as and marketable against the COA-
eligible order will cause the COA to end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume that the derived net leg market is $1.00 to
$1.05. A COA-eligible order to buy at a net price of $1.02 is entered
and initiates a COA. During the COA (prior to the end of the Response
Time Interval), the derived net leg market offer changes to $1.01.
Because this is marketable against the COA-eligible order, this change
in the derived net leg markets will cause the COA to end. Assuming the
derived net leg market offer price of $1.01 is the best net price at
the end of the COA,\17\ the COA-eligible order will execute against the
leg markets at that net price, and any remainder will then trade
against complex orders in the COB and auction responses. If a complex
order to buy was resting on the COB (for example, at a net price of
$1.01) at the initiation of the COA (for example, a do-not-COA order or
an order that is not COA-eligible),\18\ that order and the COA-eligible
order would be allocated against the leg markets in the same manner as
any other two complex orders pursuant to Rule 6.53C(c)(ii) regarding
COB executions, which is by price and then pursuant to the rules of
trading priority otherwise applicable to incoming orders in the
individual component legs. The COA-eligible order would always have
priority over the resting order, as it would always have a higher (if a
buy order) or lower (if a sell order) net price than the resting order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The leg market offer would be the best price at the end of
the COA if no auction response, order resting in the COB, or order
that entered the System during the COA had a better price.
    \18\ As previously indicated, only orders that are marketable or
that improve the price on the same side of the market initiate a
COA. See supra note 1. Thus, for there to be a situation where a
complex order was already resting on the COB at the initiation of a
COA, the order resting on the COB would be at a worse price than the
COA-eligible order that initiated the COA. If there is a complex
order resting on the COB when that is on the same side and at the
same or better price than an incoming complex order, then the
incoming order will not COA and will also enter on the COB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the example above, if a complex order to buy at a net price of
$1.01 was resting in the COB at the time the COA-eligible order to buy
at a net price of $1.02 entered the System and initiated the COA, and
the same change in the derived net leg markets occurs, assuming the
derived net leg market offer price of $1.01 is the best net price at
the end of the COA, the COA-eligible order will trade against the
derived net leg offer at $1.01 first, because it was entered at (and
thus willing to pay) a better net price than the resting complex order
(to the extent there was insufficient size in the leg markets to fill
the COA-eligible order, the remainder would then execute against
complex orders in the COB and auction responses). If there is
sufficient size left in the leg markets to trade against the resting
complex order, then the resting order will also trade (in full or in a
permissible ratio).
    Third, the proposed rule amends Rule 6.13(c)(3)(A) to delete the
language that RFR responses are limited to the size of the COA-eligible
order for allocation purposes. If the allocation algorithm for complex
orders in a class is pro-rata, the System is unable to block RFR
responses that are larger than the size of the COA-eligible order. This
proposed rule change will result in the rule regarding RFR responses
more accurately reflecting current System functionality. The Exchange
notes that RFR responses must continue to be on the opposite side of
the market of the COA-eligible order and be expressed in the applicable
minimum increment. RFR responses will be subject to the same allocation
and priority rules. Pursuant to Rule 6.13(c)(7), RFR responses are firm
with respect to the COA-eligible order for which the responses are
submitted, provided that responses that exceed the size of a COA-
eligible order are also eligible to trade with other incoming COA-
eligible orders that are received during the Response Time
Interval.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Please note that the System currently accepts RFR responses
that exceed the size of COA-eligible order. The intent of the
provision proposed to be deleted was to consider the size of any
response that did exceed the size of the COA-eligible order to the
size of that order for allocation purposes (for example, if a COA-
eligible order is for 200, and a response is for 500, the System
considers the size to be 500 when allocating orders and responses
against the COA-eligible order, rather than considering the size to
be 200). However, the System is unable to do this, and thus excess-
sized responses are considered at that size for allocation purposes.
However, the excess size of responses is still eligible to trade as
set forth in Rule 6.13(c)(7). Additionally, Participants continue to
be subject to all rules related to business conduct, including Rule
4.1 related to just and equitable principles of trade and Rule 4.7
related to manipulation (which rules are incorporated into C2's
rules by reference to Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
Rules 4.1 and 4.7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change makes technical and other
nonsubstantive changes. Currently, Interpretation and Policy .05
provides that the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis (and
announce via Regulatory Circular) which electronic allocation algorithm
from Rule 6.12 will apply to complex orders in lieu of Rule
6.13(b)(1)(B) for COB executions and/or (Rule 6.13(c)(5)(B) through (D)
for COA. The proposed rule change moves that language from
Interpretation and Policy .05 to those paragraphs.\20\ The Exchange
believes it is simpler and more convenient to have the information
regarding how COB and COA executions may allocate in one place within
the rules.\21\ The Exchange also amends Rule 6.13(c)(5)(B) and (D) to
add responses in the second sentence of each subparagraph. Those
subparagraphs address the allocation of COA-eligible orders against
certain orders and responses (as indicated in the initial sentence of
each subparagraph), and the proposed rule change is consistent with
that purpose. Additional nonsubstantive changes to Rule 6.13 are
discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The proposed rule change makes a corresponding change to
Interpretation and Policy .06(c), which relates to executions of
stock-options orders (types of complex orders) in the COB. The
proposed rule change also deletes the rule text that states that in
such classes, the orders and quotes in the individual leg series
legs will continue to have the same priority as set forth in Rule
6.13(b)(1)(A) for COB and Rule 6.13(c)(5)(A) for COA, as the
Exchange believes this language is duplicative. Those paragraphs
continue to state that complex orders that trade with orders and
quotes in the Book (whether through COB or COA) will be allocated in
accordance with the trading priority applicable in the individual
component legs, with no discretion for the Exchange to change the
allocation algorithm for those executions.
    \21\ The proposed rule change also deletes the language that the
Exchange may announce this determination by Regulatory Circular, as
Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .01 indicates that the Exchange
will announce by Regulatory Circular all determinations it makes
under Rule 6.13, which includes the determination of allocation
algorithms for COB and COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\22\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \23\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and

open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \24\
requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change removes impediments to a
free and open market and protects investors by providing Participants
with more flexibility regarding when complex orders will not COA. The
proposed rule change removes the affirmative obligation currently
imposed on Participants to request that their COA-eligible orders COA
on a class-by-class basis, as Participants currently request that all
of their COA-eligible orders COA upon entry into the System. Therefore,
the proposed rule change to have COA as the default setting for COA-
eligible orders will have no impact on COA-eligible orders submitted to
the Exchange. The proposed rule change will allow Participants to
evaluate then-current market conditions and determine if they do not
want to COA orders based on those conditions and instead want those
orders to route to the COB for potential immediate execution. These
orders with do-not COA requests will continue to have execution
opportunities and be subject to the same priority and allocation rules.
In addition, the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable
principles of trade and promotes competition because another options
exchange has a substantially similar rule, as further described below,
which similarly allows members to designate that orders not initiate a
complex order auction on that exchange.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule 1080, Commentary
.07(a)(viii) and (e) (describing the complex order live auction
(``COLA'') process and ``do not auction'' orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current rules describe how COA-eligible orders received while a
COA is ongoing would impact the COA. The proposed rule change also adds
detail regarding how incoming orders with do-not-COA requests or that
are not COA-eligible, as well as how changes in the leg markets, may
impact ongoing COAs, which protects investors by enhancing the
description in C2 Rules of current COA functionality and circumstances
that may cause a COA to end early. Because the proposed rule change
adds a provision regarding no-COA orders to the C2 Rules, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to add the provision regarding how no-COA
orders would impact a COA to the C2 Rules as well to ensure investors
understand how these orders may impact a COA. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade
because, if these orders cause a COA to end, any executions that occur
following the COA occur in accordance with allocation principles in
place, subject to an exception that the original COA-eligible order
receive time priority. This exception prevents an order that was
entered after the initiation of a COA from trading ahead of an order
with the same price that may have executed or entered the COB if it did
not COA. Similarly, the Exchange believe it is fair for a COA-eligible
order that was entered at a better price than an order that was resting
in the COB prior to initiation of the COA to execute against leg
markets that become marketable against the COA-eligible order and
resting order during the COA, because the Participant who entered the
COA-eligible order was willing to pay a better price than that of the
resting order. Incoming orders that do not COA and leg market changes
impact a COA in a substantially similar manner as incoming COA-eligible
orders; the proposed rule change just applies to different order types
not covered by the current Rules. This proposed change does not
substantively change the COA or allocation process.
    The proposed rule change to delete the provision limiting the size
of RFR responses to the size of the COA-eligible order further perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors because
it more accurately describes current System functionality. RFR
responses will be subject to the same allocation and priority rules,
and COA will continue to function in the same manner. The Exchange
notes that the rule related to the complex order auctions of another
exchange does not limit responses size to the size of the auctioned
order.\26\ The proposed rule change to reorganize certain provisions
eliminates potential confusion regarding the processing of complex
orders, which further benefits and protects investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    C2 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. The proposed rule change,
including the ability to designate orders to not COA, is available to
all Participants. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
provides Participants with more flexibility with respect to the
submission of their complex orders. The proposed rule change also
eliminates the affirmative obligation imposed on Participants to
request that COA-eligible orders COA, which they all do for all
classes. While Participants may need to undertake system work to allow
them to include a do-not-COA request on orders, use of this designation
is voluntary. C2 believes this flexibility may promote competition by
encouraging submission of complex orders to the Exchange. To the extent
that proposed rule change makes C2 a more attractive marketplace to
market participants on other exchanges, such market participants may
elect to send orders to C2 to take advantage of the additional
functionality. Additionally, other exchanges may determine to provide
similar functionality and further enhance competition. The Exchange
also notes that another options exchange has substantially similar
provisions as the proposed rule change, as described above.
    The proposed rule change to add detail to the rules regarding the
impact of changes in the leg markets on a COA describes current
functionality and is merely intended to enhance the description of this
functionality in the Rules, and thus has no impact on competition. The
nonsubstantive and technical changes have no impact on competition.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2015-025 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-C2-2015-025. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2015-025 and should be
submitted on or before November 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-27794 Filed 10-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P