[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77579-77583]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73878; File No. SR-BOX-2014-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New Rule 7300 To Allow the
Exchange To Trade Preferenced Orders

December 18, 2014.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 8, 2014, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 7300 to allow the Exchange
to trade Preferenced Orders. The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 7300 (Preferenced Orders)
to allow BOX Options Participants (``Participants'') to submit orders
for which a Market Maker is designated to receive an allocation
preference on the Exchange (``Preferenced Orders''). This proposal
provides an enhanced allocation to a Preferred Market Maker when it is
quoting at NBBO.
    This is a competitive filing based on the rules of a number of
competing options exchanges.\3\ This proposal will allow the Exchange
to be competitive with other options exchanges that provide similar
enhanced allocation opportunities to Market Makers to reward them for
attracting order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g. Phlx Rule 1080(l), CBOE Rule 8.13, ISE
Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 713, MIAX Rule 514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preferenced Orders
    A Preferenced Order, as proposed, is any order submitted by a
Participant to the Exchange for which a Market Maker is designated (a
``Preferred Market Maker'') to receive execution priority, with respect
to a portion of the Preferenced Order, upon meeting certain
qualifications described below. Preferenced Orders are submitted by a
Participant by designating an order as such and identifying a Preferred
Market Maker when entering the order.
    Preferenced Orders may be submitted by any Participant on the
Exchange. All existing order types and designations may be entered as
Preferenced Orders, with the exception of Customer Cross Orders (which
do not involve Market Makers) and Directed Orders (which relate to the
PIP and COPIP matching algorithms). If a Market-on-Opening Order or a
Complex Order is submitted as a Preferenced Order, the designation as a
Preferenced Order will be disregarded and such order will be treated on
the Exchange the same as if it were not a Preferenced Order.
Preferenced Orders may interact with auctions and other functionality
of the Exchange.
    Participants may designate an order as a Preferenced Order and
identify the applicable Preferred Market Maker across all forms of
connectivity to the Exchange. Preferenced Orders will be displayed on
the Exchange's High Speed Vendor Feed (``HSVF'') the same as orders
that are not designated as Preferenced Orders.
    A Preferred Market Maker must maintain a continuous two-sided
market, pursuant to Rule 8050(c)(1), throughout the trading day, in
option classes for which it accepts Preferenced Orders, for 99% of the
time the Exchange is open for trading in each such option class;
provided, however, that for purposes of this requirement, a Preferred
Market Maker is not required to quote in intra-day add-on series or
series that have a time to expiration of nine months or more in classes
for which it receives Preferenced Orders and a Market Maker may still
be a Preferred Market Maker in any such series if the Market Maker
otherwise complies with the Preferred Market Maker requirements.
Compliance with this requirement will be determined on a monthly basis;
however, determining compliance with this requirement on a monthly
basis does not relieve a Preferred Market Maker from meeting this
quoting requirement on a daily basis, nor does it prohibit the Exchange
from taking disciplinary action against a Preferred Market Maker for
failing to meet this requirement each trading day. If a technical
failure or limitation of a system of the Exchange prevents a Market
Maker from maintaining, or prevents a Market Maker from communicating
to the Exchange, timely and accurate electronic quotes in an option
class, the duration of such failure will be disregarded in determining
whether the Market Maker has satisfied this requirement. The Exchange
may consider other exceptions to this obligation based on a
demonstrated legal or regulatory requirement or other mitigating
circumstances.
    Except as described below, orders submitted to the Exchange as
Preferenced Orders will be treated the same as other orders submitted
to the Exchange, including being executed in price/time priority
according to the existing matching algorithm on the Exchange.

    For each price level at which all order quantities on the BOX Book
are fully executable against a Preferenced Order on a single options
series, all such orders at that price will be filled and the balance of
the Preferenced Order, if any, will be executed, to the extent
possible, against orders at the next best price level. However, at the
final price level, where the remaining quantity of the Preferenced
Order is insufficient to match the total quantity of orders on the BOX
Book, the allocation algorithm for orders executable against the
remaining quantity of the Preferenced Order will differ from the
regular price/time priority algorithm by allocating executions as
described below, in the following order: (1) To Public Customers, (2) a
preferred percentage to the Preferred Market Maker, (3) to all
remaining quotes and orders on single option series and (4) to any
Legging Order.
(Step 1) Public Customer Allocation
    First, all orders for the account of Public Customers, if any, will
be allocated for execution against the Preferenced Order. If multiple
orders on the Exchange for the account of Public Customers are
available for execution at the same price, the respective trade
allocations will be by time priority. If, at the end of the Public
Customer allocation, any unallocated quantity of the Preferenced Order
remains, the balance of the Preferenced Order will next be allocated as
described in paragraph (2) below.
(Step 2) Preferred Market Maker Allocation
    After the Public Customer allocation, if (i) the price level being
processed is at NBBO, (ii) the Preferred Market Maker has an existing
quote on the opposite side of the Preferenced Order that is also at
NBBO at the time the Preferenced Order is received and (iii) the
Preferred Market Maker would not receive a greater allocation if
allocated according to time priority in the next step, then a preferred
trade allocation shall be provided to the Preferred Market Maker equal
to forty percent (40%) of the remaining quantity of the Preferenced
Order, notwithstanding any time priority of other executable orders at
the same price level. However, if only one other executable, non-Public
Customer order (in addition to the quote of the Preferred Market Maker)
matches the Preferenced Order at the final price level, then the
Preferred allocation to the Preferred Market Maker shall be equal to
fifty percent (50%) of the remaining quantity of the Preferenced Order.
    The quantity of the allocation to the Preferred Market Maker will
be limited by the total quantity of the Preferred Market Maker quote.
Executions are allocated in numbers of whole contracts and, to ensure
the allocation priority afforded to Preferred Market Makers does not
exceed the applicable 40% or 50% specified in proposed Rule 7300(c)(2),
allocations of fractional contracts to the Preferred Market Maker in
the Preferred allocation step are rounded down to the nearest whole
number, which will not be less than one (1) contract. Legging Orders
will not be considered when determining whether the Preferred Market
Maker is allocated 40% or 50% in this step. As a result, in no case
will a Preferred Market Maker receive an allocation preference (above
what it would otherwise receive if executed in normal price-time
priority) in excess of forty percent (40%) of the remaining quantity of
the Preferenced Order after Public Customer orders are filled (or fifty
percent (50%) if only one other non-Public Customer matches) at the
final price level.
    At the end of the Preferred allocation or if no Preferred
allocation is made, the balance of the Preferenced Order will next be
allocated as described in paragraph (3) below.
(Step 3) Remaining Orders Allocation
    After the Preferred allocation or if no Preferred allocation is
made, any remaining unallocated quantity of the Preferenced Order will
be allocated to all remaining orders and quotes not receiving
allocation in paragraphs (1) or (2) above, including any quote by the
Preferred Market Maker if no Preferred allocation is made, but not
including any Legging Order, each in order of time priority. At the end
of the Remaining Orders allocation, the balance of the Preferenced
Order will next be allocated as described in paragraph (4) below.
(Step 4) Legging Orders
    If, after the allocation of all orders and quotes in paragraphs (1)
through (3) above, there remains any unallocated quantity of the
Preferenced Order, allocation of such remaining quantity of the
Preferenced Order will be made to the Legging Order at the same price.
Example 1: Preferenced Order Allocation
    Suppose that the BOX Book on options instrument A is as follows in
order of time priority:
NBBO: Buy at 2.00/Sell at 2.03
Legging Order to buy 30 contracts at 2.00
Market Maker 1 Order to buy 8 contracts at 2.00
Preferred Market Maker 2 Quote \4\ to buy 30 contracts at 2.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of Example 1(a), in which the order submitted
is not a Preferenced Order, Market Maker 2 is treated as any other
Market Maker and does not have any preference as a Preferred Market
Maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Customer 1 Order to buy 10 contracts at 2.00
Market Maker 3 Order to buy 7 contracts at 2.00
Public Customer 2 Order to buy 5 contracts at 2.00
Total Orders to buy 90 contracts at 2.00
Example 1(a): Allocation of Non-preferenced Order
    Suppose a Market Order that is not a Preferenced Order \5\ to sell
50 contracts of options instrument A is submitted. The trade allocation
at the best available price (at 2.00) is in time priority as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Example 1(a) illustrates the price/time priority matching
algorithm that currently exists on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker 1: 8 contracts
Market Maker 2: 30 contracts
Public Customer 1: 10 contracts
Market Maker 3: 2 contracts

Total allocation: 50 contracts
Example 1(b) Preferenced Order Allocation (40% to Preferred Market
Maker)
    Suppose a Preferenced Order that is a Market Order to sell 25
contracts of options instrument A is submitted. The trade allocation at
the best available price (at 2.00) is as follows:
Step 1
Public Customer 1: 10 contracts
(Public Customers allocated in time priority)
Public Customer 2: 5 contracts
(Public Customers allocated in time priority)
Step 2
Preferred Market Maker 2: 4 contracts
(Preferred allocation = 40% of 10 contracts remaining = 4 contracts)
Step 3
Market Maker 1: 6 contracts
(Remaining orders allocated in time priority; Preferenced Order is
filled)

Total allocation: 25 contracts
Example 1(c): Allocation of Preferenced Order to Preferred Market Maker
When Time Priority Is Better Than Preferred Allocation
    Suppose a Preferenced Order that is a Market Order to sell 85
contracts of options instrument A is submitted. The

trade allocation at the best available price (at 2.00) is as follows:
Step 1
Public Customer 1: 10 contracts
(Public Customers allocated in time priority)
Public Customer 2: 5 contracts
(Public Customers allocated in time priority)
Step 2
Preferred Market Maker 2: 0 contracts
(Preferred allocation = 40% of 70 contracts remaining = 28 contracts to
be allocated in Step 2; however, if executed in time priority with all
remaining quotes/orders in Step 3, the full 30 contracts of the
Preferred Market Maker's quote would be allocated at that step;
accordingly, no preference is allocated in this Step 2 and the
Preferred Market Maker is allocated with all other orders in time
priority in Step 3)
Step 3
Market Maker 1: 8 contracts
(Remaining orders allocated in time priority)
Preferred Market Maker 2: 30 contracts
(Remaining orders allocated in time priority, which results in a
greater allocation than it would have received under Step 2;
accordingly, no preference is allocated in Step 2 and the Preferred
Market Maker is allocated with other orders in time priority in this
Step 3)
Market Maker 3: 7 contracts
(Remaining orders allocated in time priority)
Step 4
Legging Order: 25 contracts
(Legging Order allocated last; Preferenced Order is filled)

Total allocation: 85 contracts
Example 2: Preferenced Order Allocation (50% to Preferred Market Maker)
    Suppose that the BOX Book on options instrument A is as follows in
order of time priority:
NBBO: Buy at 2.00/Sell at 2.03
Market Maker 1 Order to buy 20 contracts at 2.00
Preferred Market Maker 2 Quote to buy 30 contracts at 2.00
Public Customer 1 Order to buy 10 contracts at 2.00
Public Customer 2 Order to buy 5 contracts at 2.00
Legging Order to buy 30 contracts at 2.00

Total Orders to buy 95 contracts at 2.00

    Suppose a Preferenced Order that is a Market Order to sell 50
contracts of options instrument A is submitted. The trade allocation at
the best available price (at 2.00) is as follows:
Step 1
Public Customer 1: 10 contracts
(Public Customers allocated in time priority)
Public Customer 2: 5 contracts
(Public Customers allocated in time priority)
Step 2
Preferred Market Maker 2: 17 contracts
(Preferred allocation = 50% of 35 contracts remaining = 17 contracts
(rounded down))
Step 3
Market Maker 1: 18 contracts
(Remaining orders allocated in time priority; Preferenced Order is
filled)

Total allocation: 50 contracts
Example 3: Multiple Price Levels
    The following examples illustrate trade allocation of Preferenced
Orders at multiple price levels.
Example 3(a): Exposed Order
    Suppose that the BOX Book on options instrument A is as follows in
order of time priority:
NBBO: Buy at 2.00/Sell at 2.10
Broker Dealer Order to sell 10 contracts at 2.10
Public Customer Order to sell 10 contracts at 2.10
Preferred Market Maker Quote to sell 10 contracts at 2.10
(No buy orders on instrument A exist on the BOX Book)

    Suppose an Order to sell 10 contracts at $2.00 (within the NBBO
spread) is received and exposed.
    Suppose next that, while the foregoing sell Order is exposed, NBBO
moves to:
Buy at 1.95/Sell at 2.10

    Suppose finally that, while the foregoing sell Order is exposed, a
Preferenced Order to buy 30 contracts at $2.10 is received.
    The trade allocation is as follows:
First Price Level ($2.00)
Exposed Order: 10 contracts
Second Price Level ($2.10)
Step 1
Public Customer: 10 contracts
Step 2
Preferred Market Maker: 5 contracts
(Preferred allocation = 50% of 10 contracts remaining = 5 contracts)
Step 3
Broker Dealer: 5 contracts

Total allocation: 30 contracts
Example 3(b): PIP Order
    Suppose that the BOX Book on options instrument A is as follows in
order of time priority:
NBBO: Buy at 2.00/Sell at 2.10
Broker Dealer Order to sell 10 contracts at 2.10
Public Customer Order to sell 10 contracts at 2.10
Preferred Market Maker Quote to sell 10 contracts at 2.10
(No buy orders on instrument A exist on the BOX Book)
    Suppose a PIP Order to sell 10 contracts is received with a Primary
Improvement Order to buy 10 contracts at $2.00.
    Suppose further that, during the PIP, a Preferenced Order to buy 30
contracts at $2.10 is received.
    The trade allocation is as follows:
First Price Level ($2.09)
PIP Order: 10 contracts \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As provided in the Exchange's Rule 7150(a)(1), the
Preferenced Order is an Unrelated Order to the PIP and, pursuant to
Rule 7150(j), executes at a penny better than NBBO because the best
BOX price on the opposite side of the market from the Preferenced
Order is at NBBO ($2.10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Price Level ($2.10)
Step 1
Public Customer: 10 contracts
Step 2
Preferred Market Maker: 5 contracts

(Preferred allocation = 50% of 10 contracts remaining = 5 contracts)
Step 3
Broker Dealer: 5 contracts

Total allocation: 30 contracts
    As described above, only orders on single option series designated
as Preferenced Orders will be treated differently from orders entered
on the Exchange that are not Preferenced Orders. Complex Orders may
also be submitted as Preferenced Orders. However, any Preferenced Order
designation will be disregarded for Complex Orders for purposes of
dissemination, matching and execution and Complex Orders submitted as
Preferenced Orders will be treated the same as Complex Orders submitted
without such designation. As a result, no special allocation will be
made to any Preferred Market Maker, and no alternate allocation
algorithm will be applied, when executing a Complex Order designated as
a Preferenced Order.
    It will be a violation of proposed Rule 7300 for a Market Maker to
be informed of a pending Preferenced Order, with

respect to which such Market Maker is designated as the Preferred
Market Maker, prior to its entry on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\7\ in general, and section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in
particular, in that it is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is a
reasonable modification designed to provide incentives and enhanced
allocation to a Preferred Market Maker when it is quoting at NBBO. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will increase the
number of transactions on the Exchange by attracting additional order
flow to the Exchange, which will ultimately enhance competition and
provide customers with additional opportunities for execution. The
Exchange believes these changes are consistent with the goals to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal will result
in increased liquidity available at improved prices, with more
competitive pricing outside the control of any single Participant. The
proposed rule change should promote and foster competition.
Preferenced Order Allocation
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Preferenced Order
allocations are an improvement over the current allocation algorithm,
and will benefit all market participants submitting Preferenced Orders
on the Exchange. As a result of the proposed changes, the Exchange
believes that existing and additional Participants will use Preferenced
Orders to increase the number of orders that are submitted to the
Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed
Preferenced Order allocation algorithm will encourage greater
participation by Market Makers to provide quotes on the Exchange as
Preferred Market Makers. These additional responses should encourage
greater competition on the Exchange, which should, in turn, benefit and
protect investors and the public interest through the potential for
greater volume of orders and executions.
    The proposed rule changes provide priority of Public Customer
orders over Preferred Market Makers at the same price. The Exchange
believes this priority is consistent with the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange believes the Preferenced Order allocation proposal is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect
investors and the public interest, because it recognizes the unique
status of Public Customers in the marketplace by ensuring Public
Customers maintain priority before any allocations afforded to
Preferred Market Makers.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Preferenced Order
allocation is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
both customers and Participants. Giving Preferred Market Makers
allocation priority for 40% or 50% of the remaining quantity of the
Preferenced Order will provide important incentives for Preferred
Market Makers to provide liquidity on BOX, which provides greater
opportunity for executions, tighter spreads and better pricing for all
Participants. While the Commission has, in the past, been concerned
about locking up large portions of order flow from intra-market price
competition, the Exchange believes that the proposed preferred
allocation percentage adequately balances the aim of rewarding the
Preferred Market Maker with the aim of leaving a sizeable enough
portion of the incoming Preferenced Order for the other Market Makers
quoting at the same price. The Commission has previously taken the
position that a preference of 40% is not clearly inconsistent with the
Act and standards of competition and free and open markets.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45936 (May
15, 2002), 67 FR 36279, 26280 (May 23, 2002); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 42835 (May 26, 2000), 65 FR 35683, 35685-66 (June 5,
2000); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42455 (February 24,
2000), 65 FR 11388, 11398 (March 2, 2000); Phlx 80/20 Proposal, 67
FR at 48787-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that disregarding Legging Orders when
determining whether the Preferred Market Maker retains 40% or 50% under
proposed Rule 7300(c)(2) is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to customers and Participants because Legging Order
allocation will not be affected by the Preferred Market Maker retaining
the difference between 40% or 50% as discussed above.
    The Exchange believes that the Preferred Market Maker allocation is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to
protect investors and the public interest, because it strikes a
reasonable balance between encouraging vigorous price competition and
rewarding Market Makers for their unique duties. In order to receive an
allocation preference, Preferred Market Makers must meet heightened
quoting requirements as Market Makers, and also be quoting at the NBBO
at the time the Preferenced Order is received. Heightened quoting
requirements mean that Preferred Market Makers must maintain a
continuous two-sided market throughout the trading day, in option
classes for which it accepts Preferenced Orders, for 99% of the time
the Exchange is open for trading in each such option class; provided
that it is not required to so quote in intra-day add-on series or
series that have a time to expiration of nine months or more. Overall,
the proposed Preferred Market Maker allocations represent a careful
balancing by the Exchange of the rewards and obligations of various
types of market participants. The Exchange believes these requirements
of Preferred Market Makers will provide an incentive for Market Makers
to assume these additional responsibilities beyond those already
required, which will facilitate improved trading opportunities on BOX
for all Participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to give Legging Orders last
priority is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
customers and Participants. Giving Legging Orders last priority
preserves the established priority of Legging Orders since they
currently have last priority under the existing allocation algorithm.
The Exchange believes that providing priority for single option orders
over Legging Orders in the proposed Preferenced Order allocation
algorithm is reasonable as it preserves the established priority of
single option orders when executing with Complex Orders. Therefore the
Exchange believes this aspect of the proposal will avoid investor
confusion when executing orders on the Exchange.
    In addition, it is consistent with just and equitable principles of
trade and protects investors and the public interest that each
Preferred Market Maker be prohibited from being informed of a pending
Preferenced Order prior to its entry on the Exchange,

if such Market Maker is designated as the Preferred Market Maker.
    The Exchange notes that this proposal is similar to the rules of
other exchanges.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra, note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes this proposal is a
reasonable modification to its rules, designed to facilitate increased
interaction of orders on the Exchange, and to do so in a manner that
ensures a dynamic, real-time trading mechanism that maximizes
opportunities for trade executions of orders. The Exchange believes it
is appropriate and consistent with the Act to adopt the proposed rule
changes.

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

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change represents
any undue burden on competition or will impose any burden on
competition among exchanges in the listed options marketplace not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To
the contrary, the proposal is pro-competitive because it will enable
the Exchange to better compete with other options exchanges that
provide similar allocation preferences and algorithms.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra, note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to intra-market competition, Preferenced Orders will
be available to all Participants. The Exchange believes that the
proposal should encourage Market Makers that desire to qualify as
Preferred Market Makers to regularly maintain quotes at competitive
price levels in order to obtain execution percentages on Preferenced
Orders. As noted above, the proposed preferred allocation percentage
for Preferred Market Makers leaves a sizeable enough portion of the
incoming Preferenced Order for the other Market Makers quoting at the
same price to encourage intra-market price competition. Submitting a
Preferenced Order to the Exchange is entirely voluntary and
Participants will determine whether they wish to submit these orders to
the Exchange. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive marketplace
with other competing exchanges and market participants can readily
direct their order flow to other exchanges if they so choose.

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

    The Exchange has 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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2014-28 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-BOX-2014-28. 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-BOX-2014-28, and should be
submitted on or before January 14, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30121 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 182 (Monday, September 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 56980]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-7741-000]

Bartlett, Jay C.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 14, 2015, Jay C. Bartlett submitted
for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking
positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
16 U.S.C. 825d(b), Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part
45, and Order No. 664.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commission Authorization to Hold Interlocking Positions, 112
FERC ] 61,298 (2005) (Order No. 664); order on reh'g, 114 FERC ]
61,142 (2006) (Order No. 664-A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 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 electronic 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 October 5, 2015.

    Dated: September 15, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23612 Filed 9-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 123)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36615-36619]
[DOCID:fr28jn10-29]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19854]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Gas Distribution Annual
Report Form

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

ACTION: Request for public comments and OMB approval of modifications
to an existing information collection.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
published a notice in the Federal Register on December 4, 2009, under
Docket No. PHMSA-2004-19854 of its intent to revise the agency's Gas
Distribution System Annual Report Form (PHMSA F 7100.1-1). PHMSA F
7100.1-1 is covered under the PHMSA information collection titled:
``Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators,'' with an OMB
Control Number of 2137-0522. PHMSA is publishing this notice to respond
to comments and announce that the revised information collection will
be submitted to OMB for approval. This notice also informs operators of
gas distribution systems that PHMSA is planning for the revised Annual
Report Form, once approved, to be used for the 2010 calendar year and
submitted to PHMSA by March 15, 2011. The portion of the annual report
relative to mechanical fitting (compression couplings) failures will be
delayed by one year and will take effect starting with the 2011
calendar year.

DATES: Submit comments to OMB on or before July 28, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
``PHMSA-2004-19854'' and OMB Control Number ``2137-0522'' by any of the
following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-395-6566, ATTN: Desk Officer for Department of
Transportation (DOT)/PHMSA.
     Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
OMB, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer
for DOT/PHMSA.
     E-mail: OIRA, Office of Management and Budget, at the
following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(ATTN: Desk Officer
for DOT/PHMSA).
    Requests for a copy of the information collection should be
directed to Cameron Satterthwaite,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Technical Information: Mike Israni,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Information Collection: Cameron Satterthwaite,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies a revised
information collection request that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for
approval. This information collection is contained in the pipeline
safety regulations at 49 CFR parts 190-199. PHMSA has revised burden
estimates, where appropriate, to reflect the proposed adjustments to
the Gas Distribution System Annual Report Form (PHMSA F 7100.1-1). The
following information is provided for the information collection: (1)
Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) type
of request; (4) abstract of the information collection activity; (5)
description of affected public; (6) estimate of total annual reporting
and recordkeeping burden; and (7) frequency of collection. PHMSA will
request a three-year term of approval for the information collection
activity. PHMSA is posting the revised Gas Distribution Annual Report
Form and instructions to Docket No. PHMSA-2004-19854. Once approved,
the revised Annual Report Form will be used to collect information for
the 2010 calendar year and submitted to PHMSA by March 15, 2011. The
portion of the annual report relative to mechanical fitting
(compression couplings) failures will be delayed by one year and will
take effect starting with the 2011 calendar year.
    This notice includes the following:

I. Background
II. Summary of Comments
III. Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for
Comments

I. Background

    On December 4, 2009, (74 FR 34906), PHMSA published a final rule
titled: ``Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas
Distribution Pipelines.'' The Distribution Integrity Management Program
(DIMP) rulemaking established the requirements for integrity management
programs for Gas Distribution systems. In the DIMP notice of proposed
rulemaking, PHMSA proposed the reporting of all plastic pipe failures.
In the final rule, PHMSA modified this proposal to limit the reporting
of plastic pipe failures to those occurring on compression couplings
but extended the collection to include couplings used in metal pipe.
PHMSA initially provided an opportunity for comments on this proposal
for 30 days and subsequently published another Federal Register notice
(December 31, 2009; 74 FR 69286) to allow for a total comment period of
60 days. PHMSA is developing a final rule to address the comments
received on this proposal and revise the pipeline safety regulations to
clarify the extent of pipe fittings involved in the compression
coupling (mechanical fitting) failure information collection, revise
key dates for the collection and submission of mechanical fitting
failure information, align threat categories in Sec.  192.1007 with the
``cause of leak'' categories on the Annual Report Form and
Instructions, and clarify the Excess Flow Valve (EFV) metric to be
reported by operators of gas systems.
    In addition to the comment period for the proposed regulatory
requirements, PHMSA used the December 4, 2009, final rule to announce a
60-day comment period seeking public comments about the proposed
modification of the information collection: OMB Control Number 2137-
0522, with respect to the corresponding annual report form (Form PHMSA
F 7100.1-1 Annual Report for Gas Distribution Systems). Section 191.11
requires each operator of a gas distribution pipeline system, except as
provided in Sec.  191.11(b), to submit report Form PHMSA F 7100.1-1
Annual Reports for Gas Distribution System. The proposed revisions to
PHMSA F 7100.1-1 are needed for operators to submit information
required by the DIMP final rule regarding compression coupling
(mechanical fitting) failures, four program performance measures, and
the number of EFVs in the system at the end of the year on single-
family residential services. The purpose of this notice is to address
comments received from the 60-day comment period and announce the
changes to the annual report form that will be submitted to OMB for
approval.

II. Summary of Comments

    PHMSA received twenty-three letters commenting on the proposed
compression coupling (now referred to as mechanical fittings) reporting
requirements on the Distribution Annual Report Form. The comments were
from twelve pipeline operators, two trade associations representing
pipeline operators, NAPSR representing State pipeline safety
regulators, one State pipeline regulatory agency, two manufacturers,
and one industry consultant. Several commenters submitted multiple
letters. In addition to comments about the specific information to be
collected, commenters expressed concern that the reporting requirements
will require operators to perform a ``root cause'' analysis of each
failure. Based on discussion at the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards
Committee (TPSSC) meeting and comments submitted to the docket, PHMSA
has further modified the proposed Distribution Annual Report Form. A
summary of comments about the proposed changes to the information
collection, PHMSA's responses, and the date operators are to begin
using the revised form are provided below.
    The comments were grouped into the following topic summaries:
    Comment Topic 1 PRA procedural requirements in making proposed
changes to the Gas Distribution System Annual Report form; information
being collected is not compatible with the purpose of the gas
distribution system annual report.
    Comment Topic 2 Delete, change and define data fields and align
terms used in Sec.  192.1009, and proposed Part F of the annual report
and instructions.
    Comment Topic 3 Proposals for other changes to the Gas Distribution
System Annual Report Form and instructions.
    A discussion of each comment topic and PHMSA's response to each
follows:
    Comment Topic 1: PRA procedural requirements in making proposed
changes to the Gas Distribution System Annual Report form; information
being collected is not compatible with the purpose of the gas
distribution system annual report.
    Several commenters maintained that PHMSA's proposal to modify the
Gas Distribution Annual Report information collection did not meet the
requirements of 44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. of the PRA of 1995. They
indicated that PHMSA did not provide an adequate description of the
need, a statement of purpose for the data collection, or an evaluation
of the cost benefit of collecting this data. They claimed the proposed
changes to the information collection were burdensome, substantive, and
without benefit to public safety in near term. Additionally, one
commenter stated that the intent of the information collection
presented in the proposed rule differed from how the information
collection was prescribed in the final rule in Sec.  192.1009.
    Southwest Gas maintained that some of the changes were inconsistent
with the discussion held with TPSSC on December 12, 2008, and requested
that the issue be brought back to the TPSSC for its review and
approval.
    Some commenters believed that there should be a separate
information collection for mechanical fitting failure data. Commenters
claimed that the mechanical fitting failure data was too detailed for
reporting via the Annual

Report Form. A commenter stated that the purpose of the Annual Report
Form is to summarize data about an operator's system for the prior
year. One commenter suggested the information be collected using the
Incident Report form. Another commenter suggested that information
could be collected in a manner consistent with the Plastic Pipe Data
Collection.
    PHMSA Response: PHMSA is taking the necessary measures to comply
with the PRA procedural requirements in amending PHMSA F 7100.1-1. The
60-day notice published in the December 4, 2009, DIMP final rule and
this 30-day notice are part of those steps to comply with the PRA
requirements. PHMSA will not implement the amendments to PHMSA F
7100.1-1 until PHMSA has received approval from OMB.
    Mechanical fitting failure has been the cause of a number of
incidents on distribution pipelines in recent years and the subject of
two PHMSA advisories. PHMSA needs additional information concerning
mechanical fitting failures to determine if there are any trends or
concerns regarding mechanical fitting failures in the industry. To
identify trends, there needs to be sufficient data to characterize the
type of fittings which are more susceptible to failure. If too little
information is collected about the attributes of the fitting, only
broad generalizations could be developed. PHMSA seeks to identify the
smallest subset of mechanical fittings which pose the highest risk. The
information collection will assist PHMSA in identifying problems where
additional targeted requirements may be needed to protect public safety
and help prevent future incidents. While the majority of mechanical
fittings currently being installed are plastic, problems have been
identified with existing steel mechanical fittings. The quality of
original pipeline installation, quality of the original material,
changes in the environment, and the appropriateness of the original
design application can manifest itself in problems over time. For this
reason, in the DIMP final rule, PHMSA invited public comment on the
extension of this requirement to include reporting of mechanical
fittings failures on metal pipe. This information collection may assist
operators in identifying specific mechanical fittings, including
installation or design practices, which pose the greatest threat to the
integrity of their pipeline system.
    PHMSA provided the requirements for reporting the information
collected in Parts D, E, and F on the Annual Report Form in the DIMP
proposed rule and final rule. Additionally, PHMSA discussed the
proposed changes with the TPSSC as detailed in the transcript to the
meeting which may be reviewed in under Docket Number PHMSA-2009-0203 at
www.Regulations.gov. In discussing the revised form with TPSSC, PHMSA
conveyed that the purpose of the information to be collected is to
determine the root cause of the fitting failures. PHMSA mentioned that
even if the plastic pipe failures were removed from reporting,
compression coupling (mechanical fitting) failure reporting would still
be retained. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had
informed PHMSA that a safety recommendation pertaining to the data
collection of mechanical fitting failure information was imminent and
recommended that PHMSA revise the DIMP final rule to address more
explicitly the risks from compression coupling failures. Based on the
discussion at the TPSSC meeting, PHMSA decided to reduce the frequency
of the reporting from within 90 days of failure to annually.
    Operators conveyed that they need six to twelve months to modify
their Information Technology systems, internally generated forms, and
data collection procedures to accommodate DIMP-related information
collection requirements. In direct response to that concern, PHMSA has
revised the Annual Report form and instructions to specify the delayed
collection of mechanical fitting failure information in Part F. PHMSA
is planning for operators to begin the collection of mechanical fitting
failure information on January 1, 2011, for the 2011 Calendar Year with
final submission by March 15, 2012. PHMSA supports the involvement of
all stakeholders during the review process for future amendments to the
Annual Report form based on the data collected. PHMSA is revising the
level of effort to complete this information collection as detailed in
section III: Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for
Comments.
    PHMSA uses the information operators report on the Annual Report as
one method to evaluate operator performance and identify national
trends. PHMSA strives to enhance safety in a risk-based, systematic
approach to developing and refining pipeline safety programs. The
collection of mechanical fitting failure information supports these
objectives. While the information could be collected through a separate
information collection, the Annual Report Form is an established
channel and not incongruous with its purpose. Information operators
submit about their transmission integrity management programs was
recently integrated into the Transmission Annual Report Form. It was
logical to have distribution integrity management information be
reported on the Distribution Annual Report Form. PHMSA is pursuing
electronic reporting for the Annual Report Form which will reduce the
reporting burden on operators. The electronic submission of data will
increase the accuracy and quality of data collected which, in turn,
will improve PHMSA's data integration efforts. Information about
electronic filing can be found in the Updates to Pipeline and Liquefied
Natural Gas Reporting Requirements notice of proposed rulemaking
published on July 2, 2009 (74 FR 31675).
    Comment Topic 2: Delete, change and define data fields. Align terms
used in Sec.  192.1009, the Annual Report Form and Instructions, and
the Incident Report Form and Instructions
    Commenters noted that some of the information requested in the form
regarding mechanical fitting failures may not be available and if it is
available, would require a significant effort to locate. The
information cited on the proposed form included ``lot number'',
``coupling manufacturer'', and ``decade of manufacture''. Commenters
claimed that external coatings may obscure the manufacturer's markings.
Operators were concerned about potential consequences of leaving fields
empty on the Annual Report if they could not locate the information.
They requested that these fields be deleted and if they were not
deleted, that PHMSA provide operators relief when the information is
not readily available or apparent.
    Comments were submitted regarding each mechanical fitting failure
data field on the proposed Annual Report form. These comments are
summarized in the table below.
    PHMSA Response: Locating data requires a reasonable effort on the
part of operators. Nonetheless, PHMSA recognizes that operators may not
be able to locate some of the data requested. While operators may not
always be able to identify some of the data, the data they can identify
will assist in determining the extent of a mechanical fitting failure
issue. More granular data such as ``lot number'' and ``manufacturer''
may assist in narrowing an issue to a smaller group of fittings. The
Annual Report form and instructions provide for the operator to record
``UNAVAILABLE'' if the operator cannot locate the ``lot number'',
``manufacturer'', or the ``part or model Number'' data. Accordingly,
PHMSA retains the reporting requirements

included in the DIMP final rule for each mechanical fitting failure
data field.
    We have changed the title for Part F on the Annual Report Form from
``compression coupling'' to ``mechanical fitting''.
    The comments and related PHMSA response pertaining to the data
fields are summarized in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annual report                       Public comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coupling Manufacturer........   The Incident Report form
                                cautions that the industry jargon
                                concerning compression fittings can be
                                misleading. Manufacturers have utilized
                                each other's components and sell
                                ``private labeled'' fittings under their
                                own name. Manufacturer's names change.
PHMSA Response...............  The instructions from the Incident Report
                                Form are repeated in the Annual Report
                                Form instructions for this field. The
                                instructions address the commenters'
                                concerns about identifying the
                                manufacturer who produced the fitting.
Model No.....................   The model number is usually not
                                available. Consider deleting the field.
PHMSA Response...............  Field retained. Operators are to record
                                ``UNAVAILABLE'' when they cannot locate
                                the information with reasonable effort.
Lot Number...................   The lot number is usually not
                                available. Consider deleting the field.
PHMSA Response...............  Field retained. Operators are to record
                                ``UNAVAILABLE'' when they cannot locate
                                the information with reasonable effort.
Decade of Manufacture........   Operators generally know when a
                                fitting was installed but not
                                necessarily when the fitting was
                                manufactured. The fitting may have been
                                in stock for years prior to
                                installation. The information is not
                                readily available.
                                Change to ``Decade of
                                Installation''.
                                The decade a fitting is
                                manufactured may not be accurate because
                                the information would have to be
                                inferred from pipe installation records
PHMSA Response...............  The field ``Decade of Manufacture'' was
                                split into two fields for the operator
                                to provide the best information the
                                operator has available; ``Year
                                Installed'' and ``Year Manufactured''.
                                The year of installation is generally
                                shown on the as-built drawing and/or on
                                a map. If neither the year installed nor
                                the year manufactured is known but the
                                decade manufactured is known, the field
                                ``Decade Manufactured'' is to be used.
Location in System...........   Use radio buttons similar to
                                those in the Incident Report.
                                ``Meter set'' and ``Riser
                                joint'' are confusing. A failure on a
                                flexible field assembled riser could be
                                reported as located either at the meter
                                set or in a riser joint.
PHMSA Response...............  The field ``Location in the System'' was
                                split into two fields, ``Location of
                                System'' and ``Type of Mechanical
                                Fitting'', to better identify and reduce
                                confusion as to where the failed fitting
                                was located. The ``Location in the
                                System'' will identify if the fitting is
                                above or below ground, inside or
                                outside, and if it connects a main-to-
                                main, a main-to-service, or a service-to-
                                main. The type of mechanical fittings
                                include: service/main tee, tapping tee,
                                transition fitting, coupling, riser,
                                adapter, valve, sleeve, or other
                                fitting. Radio buttons are provided.
Nominal Pipe Size............   Change the instructions for
                                ``Nominal pipe size'' and ``Material
                                Type'' to ``Enter the piping material to
                                which the leaking/pulled-out compression
                                fitting was connected.'' and ``Enter the
                                nominal piping size''.
PHMSA Response...............  Radio buttons for most common nominal
                                pipe sizes were added to the form along
                                with a selection of the dimension type
                                of IPS, CTS, or NPS.
Material Type (Body).........   Segregate the data sets for
                                plastic fittings from metal fittings to
                                avoid confusion in the data.
                                Add type of materials being
                                joined by the compression couplings.
PHMSA Response...............  The ``Material Type (Body)'' field was
                                split into three fields to identify the
                                fitting material and the material of the
                                two pipes connected to the fitting.
Nature of Failure............   Consider deleting the field.
                                Change to ``Cause of Release''
                                or ``Cause of Leak''.
                                Change to ``Apparent Root
                                Cause''.
                                Determining the ``nature of
                                failure'' goes beyond reporting to
                                performing a ``root cause'' analysis.
                                Operators would need to develop new
                                practices and procedures to determine
                                root cause.
                                PHMSA should develop procedures
                                for how to perform a root cause
                                analysis.
                                Select the ``nature of failure''
                                from the following choices: ``leak
                                through seal'', ``leak through body'' or
                                ``pull-out''.
                                Select the ``nature of failure''
                                from the existing eight causes from Part
                                C of the Annual Report Form.
                                Compressive forces during
                                installation may be fixed by design or
                                they may be influenced by human factors.
                                External forces or environmental changes
                                may also affect them.
                                Performance of compression
                                couplings are dependent upon design,
                                fabrication, installation, application,
                                and external factors.
                                Need to further delineate
                                between types of couplings. Request
                                industry stakeholder group create
                                standard for performing a root cause
                                analysis and for reporting of data.
                                Gather factual data regarding
                                the largest problems: installation and
                                application practices. Operators should
                                report data, not the failure cause.
                                Reporting of cause requires expert
                                forensic analysis. Remove
                                ``manufacturing defect'' as operators
                                cannot determine.
                                Analysis is best performed at
                                the operator level.
PHMSA Response...............  Field retained. Operators are to record
                                ``UNAVAILABLE'' when they cannot locate
                                the information with reasonable effort.
                                Operators are required to investigate
                                failures per section 192.617. The
                                investigation of a hazardous leak on a
                                mechanical fitting would follow the
                                operator's established procedure for
                                determining the cause of the failure.
                                The field ``Nature of Failure'' was
                                changed to ``Apparent cause of leak''
                                and provided the same choices as on the
                                Annual Report Form in Part C- Total
                                Leaks and Hazardous leaks eliminated/
                                repaired During Year. Additionally, the
                                field was split into two additional
                                fields for operators to select the type
                                of defect (construction, material,
                                design, previous damage, thermal
                                expansion/contraction) and the location
                                of the leak (leak through seal, leak
                                through body, pull-out).
Number of Similar Failures...   Term ``Number of Similar
                                Failures'' was not mentioned in
                                192.1009.
                                Determining the number of
                                similar failures requires judgment.
                                Consider deleting the field.
                                Nature of the information requested,
                                such as lot number/part number makes it
                                impractical to have similar failures.
                                Confusing and inappropriate--
                                Consider deleting the field.

PHMSA Response...............  This field was intended to reduce the
                                number of failures an operator would
                                report if they were similar in nature.
                                Due to the confusion, PHMSA eliminates
                                this field.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment Topic 3 Proposals for Other Changes to the Gas Distribution
System Annual Report Form and Instructions.
    Some of the other comments proposed changes to other parts of the
Annual Report Form. A commenter requested that one of the columns
titled: ``Other'' in Part B.1 be amended to ``Other Plastic'' to be
consistent with Part B.2 and B.3. Another commenter maintained that
based on The Integrity Management for Gas Distribution Report of Phase
1 Investigations (December 2005), the ``PERCENT OF UNACCOUNTED FOR
GAS'' in Part H is not a valid national level performance measure and
should be removed from the Annual Report Form.
    NAPSR suggested that PHMSA modify the form instructions to align
with the changes recently made to the incident report form and
instructions. NAPSR also proposed a revision of the definition of
``excavation damage'' to include ``damaged tracer wire'' and the use of
the term ``enclosure'' as opposed to the ``housing'' for the line
device.
    Commenters also requested a ``save'' feature for electronic
reporting so that the report can be printed out and circulated for
review prior to electronic submittal. Additionally, they noted the
importance of the use of pick lists when possible instead of free form
data collection.
    PHMSA Response: PHMSA appreciates the input commenters provided to
improve the Annual Report Form. PHMSA made an editorial correction to
the column titles for ``Other'' in Part B.1 and B.2 on the proposed
Annual Report form. A ``save'' feature will be available for electronic
data submission for the revised annual report. The paper submission
includes pick lists as will future electronic submission. Under this
information collection notice, PHMSA limits changes to and addresses
comments about the Annual Report form and instructions to those
proposed in the DIMP final rule.

III. Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for Comments

    The revised burden hours associated with this information
collection is:
    Title of Information Collection: Incident and Annual Reports for
Gas Pipeline Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0522.
    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved information
collection to one form within the information collection, PHMSA F
7100.1-1 Annual Reports for Gas Distribution System.
    Abstract: Currently Information Collection 2137-0522 titled:
``Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators'' has an
approved burden hour estimate of 37,845 hours. This information
collection consists of incident and annual reporting for gas pipeline
operators. Based on review of proposed changes to the Gas Distribution
Annual Report form data, PHMSA estimates the respondent community of
1,262 Distribution Operators to report a total of 18,000 mechanical
fitting failures. PHMSA estimates that the form changes relative to
this notice will result in one hour increase per mechanical fitting
failure. These actions would result in an increase from 37,845 hours to
an estimated 55,845 hours (37,845 hours + 18,000 hours).
    The result of this revision is specified in the following:
    Affected Public: Gas Pipeline Operators.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,212.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 55,845 hours (18,000 hour
increase).
    Frequency of collection: Annually with the option for the operator
to submit mechanical fitting failure information electronically at
greater frequency if the operator chooses.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 18, 2010.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010-15633 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 14604]
[DOCID:fr26mr10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0623]

Guidance for Industry on Anesthetics for Companion Animals;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of Guidance for Industry 192 entitled
``Anesthetics for Companion Animals.'' This guidance makes
recommendations for the development of anesthetic new animal drug
products for companion animals. The guidance discusses the contents of
the target animal safety, effectiveness, and labeling technical
sections of a new animal drug application (NADA) for general
anesthetics.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food
and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests.
    Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Germaine Connolly, Center for
Veterinary Medicine, (HFV-116), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a Guidance for Industry
192 entitled ``Anesthetics for Companion Animals.'' This
guidance document makes recommendations to assist developers of general
anesthetic drugs (injectable or inhalational) for use in companion
animals (dogs, cats, and horses). The guidance specifically describes
what should be considered while planning and executing safety and field
studies for the proposed anesthetic. In addition, the guidance includes
recommendations on how to analyze and package the collected data for
submission to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM).
    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2008, (73 FR 76657), FDA
published the notice of availability for a draft guidance entitled
``Anesthetics for Companion Animals'' which gave interested persons
until March 2, 2009, to comment on the draft guidance. FDA received a
few comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered
as the guidance was finalized. In addition to some of the changes based
on the comments received, CVM made a few minor changes to the guidance
to add clarity and accuracy. The guidance announced in this notice
finalizes the draft guidance dated December 17, 2008.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA
or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information have been approved under OMB Control No.
0910-0032 (expiration date 04/30/2010).

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/default.htm or http://
www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 22, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-6700 Filed 3-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9275-9276]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02983]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10640-01-OA]

Notification of Public Meetings of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee Ozone Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces
two public meetings of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) Ozone Panel. A public meeting will be held for the CASAC Ozone
Panel to receive a briefing from EPA on the Policy Assessment (PA) for
the Reconsideration of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, External Review Draft Version 2. A second public meeting
will be held for the panel to peer review the PA.

DATES: The briefing from EPA will be held on March 2, 2023, from 11
a.m. to 3 p.m. The public meeting for the panel to peer review the PA
will be held on Wednesday, March 29, 2023, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and
Thursday, March 30, 2023, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. All times listed are in
Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: The briefing on March 2, 2023, will be conducted virtually.
Please refer to the CASAC website at https://casac.epa.gov for
information on how to attend the meeting. The public meeting on March
29, 2023, and March 30, 2023 will be conducted in person at the Hilton
Durham near Duke University, 3800 Hillsborough Rd., Durham, NC 27705,
and virtually. Please refer to the CASAC website at https://casac.epa.gov for details on how to access the meetings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding this notice may contact Mr. Aaron Yeow,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone at
(202) 564-2050 or via email at [email protected]. General information
concerning the CASAC, as well as any updates concerning the meetings
announced in this notice can be found on the CASAC website: https://casac.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review
air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend to the EPA Administrator
any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be
appropriate. The CASAC shall also: advise the EPA Administrator of
areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the
adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the
research efforts necessary to provide the required information; advise
the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution
concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity; and advise
the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social,
economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies
for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS. As amended, 5 U.S.C.,
App. Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA
carry out a periodic review and revision, as appropriate, of the air
quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six ``criteria'' air pollutants,
including ozone and related photochemical oxidants.
    The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2, and conducts
business in accordance with FACA and related regulations. The CASAC and
the CASAC Ozone Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all
appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and
EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the CASAC Ozone Panel will hold
a public meeting to receive a briefing from EPA on the Policy
Assessment (PA) for the Reconsideration of the Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, External Review Draft Version 2, and a public
meeting for the panel to peer review the PA.
    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the PA
should be directed to Ms. Leigh Meyer ([email protected]).
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review
documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible on the CASAC
website: https://casac.epa.gov.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments on the topic of this
advisory activity, including the charge to the CASAC and the EPA review
documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to
consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the
CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or
technical information or analysis for CASAC to consider or if it
relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the
instructions below to submit comments.
    Oral Statements: Individuals or groups requesting an oral
presentation during the public meeting will be limited to five minutes.
Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written
comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented
orally can be expanded upon in writing. The public comment period will
be on March 29, 2023. Interested parties should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow,
DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted
above by March 22, 2023, to be placed on the list of public speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout
the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by CASAC
members, statements should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via
email) at the contact information noted above by March 22, 2023. It is
the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the web
page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are
requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the
SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its
websites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal
contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted
to the CASAC website. Copyrighted material will not be posted without
explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202)
564-2050 or [email protected]. To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO, at the contact information noted
above, preferably at least ten days prior to each meeting, to give EPA
as much time as possible to process your request.

V. Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2023-02983 Filed 2-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 29193-29194]
[DOCID:fr19my06-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53798; File No. SR-Amex-2006-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Manner in Which Executed Contracts Are Allocated

May 12, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 14, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. Amex has
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission.\5\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)
    \5\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), Amex provided the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the filing date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 935-ANTE to revise the
manner in which executed contracts are allocated. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site (http://www.amex.com
), at the principal office of the Amex, 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, Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
Amex 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's ANTE System currently automatically allocates
executed contracts among market participants on a trade (i.e., market
participants who were either quoting or had orders at the Amex best bid
or offer (``ABBO'') at the time of execution) as follows: (i) All non-
broker-dealer customer orders will be allocated first; (ii) specialist
participating in the quote will be allocated executed contracts in
accordance with the specialist participation schedules set forth in
Amex Rule 935-ANTE; and (iii) remaining executed contracts will be
allocated to broker-dealers and competing market makers as one ANTE
Participant, and registered options traders as individual ANTE
Participants in accordance with provisions also set forth in Amex Rule
935-ANTE. The specialist participation schedules provide specialists
with an enhanced participation based upon their role as specialists and
their heightened obligations and responsibilities to the marketplace.
While this methodology creates an incentive for specialists and
registered options traders to quote competitively, Amex believes that
it does not create an incentive to display large size quotes. Amex
believes that advertising liquidity through large size quotes is
necessary in today's competitive options marketplace. In order to
compete effectively with the other options exchanges, the Amex asserts
that it must provide incentives to its specialists and registered
options traders to display large size quotes.
    Therefore, Amex is proposing to amend Amex Rule 935-ANTE to revise
the manner in which executed contracts are allocated when more than one
market participant is either quoting or has orders at the Amex best bid
or offer at the time the execution occurs. The proposed methodology
will incorporate parity splits, which reward participants for posting
their best quotes, blended with a size pro rata component, which Amex
believes will provide incentive for specialists and registered options
traders to quote larger sizes. The requirement that all non-broker-
dealer customer orders be allocated first will remain in place under
the revised methodology. The allocation algorithm will have two
components. Component A is the parity component of the algorithm. In
this component all market participants (except for non-broker-dealer
customers) who were either quoting or had orders at the ABBO will be
treated equally. Accordingly, the percentage used for Component A is an
equal percentage derived by dividing 100 by the number of market
participants at the ABBO. The Amex believes that the component gives
market participants an incentive to quote at a better price than their
counterparts, regardless of the size of their quote. Component B is the
size pro rata component and is designed to reward market participants
who quote in size. The percentage used for Component B is the
percentage that the size of each market participant's quote or order at
the ABBO represents relative to the total number of contracts in the
disseminated bid (for sell orders) and offer (for buy orders). The
weight each component will have in the final percentage used to
allocate executed contracts will initially be equal. The Options
Trading Committee \6\ will have the ability to modify the weighting of
Components A and B if the Committee believes such modifications will
further enhance specialists' and registered options traders' incentives
to quote competitively or will increase liquidity. The specialist will
continue to receive an enhanced participation under the revised
methodology. If the specialist is quoting at the ABBO the specialist's
allocation will be the greater of (i) the amount the specialist would
receive pursuant to the allocation algorithm; or (ii) the amount the
specialist would be entitled pursuant to the current specialist
participation schedule set forth in Amex Rule 935-ANTE. The proposed
allocation algorithm will only apply to orders executed in the ANTE
System. Orders executed outside the ANTE System will continue to be
allocated pursuant to Amex Rule 950-ANTE (l), Commentary .03. The
Exchange believes the proposed allocation algorithm with its blended
parity and size pro rata components will provide further incentives to
specialists and registered options traders to quote more competitively
and in larger size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Options Trading Committee is comprised of the two Floor
Governors and the Chairman or their designees of the Options
Specialist Association, the Options Market Makers Association and
the Floor Brokers Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange anticipates putting the proposed allocation
methodology into effect once changes to the ANTE System to accommodate
the methodology have been completed. The ANTE System changes were
expected to be in place for all options products by April 7, 2006.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) does not become operative for thirty days from the date on
which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ thereunder. The Commission notes
that the 30-day operative delay has elapsed and therefore the filing is
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate such proposed rule change
if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

SR-Amex-2006-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2006-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Amex. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-
Amex-2006-25 and should be submitted on or before June 9, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7642 Filed 5-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 67408]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27530]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
November 15, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
November 8, 2012 will be:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution
and settlement of administrative proceedings; and a litigation
matter.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 7, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27530 Filed 11-7-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 47409]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL22-62-000; EL22-63-000; EL22-64-000; EL22-65-000;
(Unconsolidated)]

California Independent System Operator Corporation, ISO New
England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest
Power Pool Inc.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and
Refund Effective Date

    On July 28, 2022, the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos.
EL22-62-000, EL22-63-000, EL22-64-000, and EL22-65-000 pursuant to
section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting
investigations into whether the existing open access transmission
tariffs of California Independent System Operator Corporation, ISO New
England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and/or
Southwest Power Pool Inc. (collectively, Responding RTOs/ISOs) are
unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or
otherwise unlawful, and to establish a refund effective date. Cal.
Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 180 FERC ] 61,049 (2022).
    The refund effective date in each of Docket Nos. EL22-62-000, EL22-
63-000, EL22-64-000, and EL22-65-000, established pursuant to section
206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in any of Docket Nos.
EL22-62-000, EL22-63-000, EL22-64-000, and EL22-65-000 must file a
notice of intervention or motion to intervene in the relevant
proceeding, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2021), within 21 days of the
date of issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: July 28, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16617 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P