[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56652]
[DOCID:fr28se05-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-404-001]

Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Compliance
Filing

September 16, 2005.
    Take notice that, on September 9, 2005, Central New York Oil and
Gas Company, LLC (CNYOG) submitted a revised compliance filing as part
of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No.
103A, to comply with the Commission's Order No. 587-S. CNYOG requests
all necessary waivers to make this tariff sheet effective September 1,
2005.
    CNYOG states that copies of the filing were served on parties on
the official service list as well as the company's jurisdictional
customers and interested State commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5219 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PART B: COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

Part B applies to four WaterSense data collection efforts: a census survey of all organizational partners, a census survey of all licensed certification providers, and two consumer surveys, one of which uses sampling techniques. Section I describes the required elements for the annual reporting process for all organizational partners and quarterly reporting for all licensed certification providers, Section II discusses these elements for the consumer awareness phone survey, and Section III discusses these elements for the Internet-based consumer survey.

SECTION I: ANNUAL REPORTING CENSUS AND QUARTERLY LICENSED CERTIFICATION PROVIDER CENSUS

B1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any sampling or other respondent selection method to be used. Data on the number of entities (e.g., establishments, state and local government units, households, persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rate for the collection as a whole. If the collection has been conducted previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the last collection.

      WaterSense will collect data from promotional partners, manufacturers, retailers/distributors, and builders via annual reporting each year from 2013 to 2016. WaterSense plans to collect data from professional certifying organizations from 2014 to 2016. WaterSense will collect data from all providers on a quarterly basis.
      As of February 2013, WaterSense has 1,372 reporting partners. This is a census survey, and no sampling methods will be used for either the annual or quarterly surveys. Table B-1 summarizes the number of partners by type.

B-1: WaterSense Reporting Partners by Partner Type, February 2013
Partner Type
Number
Promotional
829
Manufacturer
239
Retailers/Distributor
206
Builder
66
Professional Certifying Organization
14
Licensed Certification Providers
18
Total
1,372

      Table B-2 summarizes the actual response rate received for the annual census during previous data collections.

B-2: WaterSense Annual Reporting by Partner Type, 2009-2011*

Partner Type
Reporting Year
Response Rate
Promotional
2011
30 %

2010
33 %

2009
52 %
Manufacturer
2011
36 %

2010
44 %

2009
41%
Retailer/Distributor
2011
10 %

2010
12 %

2009
20%
Builder
2011
7 %

2010
28 %

2009
N/A  -  reporting not required
Professional Certifying Organization
2009-2011
N/A  -  reporting not required
*Response rates for previous years available upon request.

B-3: WaterSense Quarterly Reporting for Licensed Certification Providers, 2010-2011

Partner Type
Reporting Quarter
Response Rate
Licensed Certification Providers
Q3 2012
53 %

Q2 2012
47 %

Q1 2012
40 %

Q4 2011
53 %

Q3 2011
40 %

Q2 2011
31 %

Q1 2011
55 %

Q4 2010
64 %

B2. Describe the procedures for the collection of information including: (a) statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection; (b) estimation procedures; (c) degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification; (d) unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures; and (e) any use of periodic (e.g., less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce burden.

Annual Reporting

All WaterSense partners except for irrigation partners and licensed certification providers (who submit quarterly reports as discussed below) submit an annual reporting form electronically via an online form. In addition, manufacturer and retailer/distributor partners are also required to submit shipment and sales data to a WaterSense contractor. The data will be recorded on annual reporting forms and received via the U.S. mail or private delivery service. EPA anticipates that most, if not all, partners will request that shipment and sales data be handled as CBI. WaterSense procedures assume that all shipment and sales data will be handled as CBI. Upon receipt of an annual reporting form with shipment data, the WaterSense data manager provides a listing of reporting partners to the WaterSense Helpline staff. Helpline staff verify eligibility of the partner to report by checking the listing of partners in the manufacturer category. If the partner is not eligible to report, Helpline staff contact the partner to discuss their partnership category and revise the partner's designation in Salesforce, if necessary, or inform the data manager and the Helpline manager that the partner incorrectly submitted data. If the partner is not eligible to report, the data manager will not include the partner's data in subsequent analyses and note the decision on the partner's reporting form. After confirming eligibility to submit data, the data manager or her designee, will review each submission to determine:
    * Does the manufacturer own the original certification file? This step reduces the chances of double counting shipment data submitted by the original manufacturer and others who rebrand and resell the products.
    * Are there internal inconsistencies in the report (e.g., number of WaterSense products shipped exceeds the total number of products shipped)?
    * Are the data unrealistic for the given partner (e.g., shipments are excessive for what might be expected for a company of size reporting)?
    * Is there evidence that the partner has provided estimated data rather than actual?
    * Is there evidence that the partner has included international shipments or sales?

If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, ERG will contact the partner to clarify. If the partner cannot sufficiently explain the data, they will not be included in subsequent data analyses.

	Provider Reporting

	Licensed certification provider partners submit quarterly reporting forms electronically via an online form. WaterSense receives these online forms from partners four times a year, in early February, May, August, and November. The reporting form asks for contact information as well as information about the WaterSense labeled new homes that the provider organization inspected during the previous calendar quarter.
Upon receipt of a quarterly reporting form, Helpline staff verifies that the partner is a bona fide "provider" partner and that contact information for the primary contact at the organization has not changed, and, if it has, updates the WaterSense database accordingly. After confirming eligibility, Helpline staff marks the year and quarter (i.e., Q1 2012) that the information should be associated with in the database. The Helpline manager reviews each submission for reasonableness (e.g., has there been a large increase or decrease in figures reported in previous reports; does the reported figure seem reasonable given the size of the organization and timeframe of the report), and follows up with the partner to clarify any questions about the data submitted.  The Helpline manager then sends an email to any builder partners who are referenced in the quarterly reports to verify that the new homes information submitted was accurate.

B3. Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non-response. The accuracy and reliability of information must be shown to be adequate for intended use. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be provided for any collection that will not yield "reliable" data that can be generalized to the universe studied.

	Upon joining WaterSense, EPA requires organizational partners to commit to submitting annual reports and requires provider partners to submit quarterly reports. The importance of both annual reporting processes is stressed to partners upon joining. To maximize response EPA conducts the following activities:
    * Require the submission of an annual reporting form for those partners wishing to be considered for a WaterSense award.
    * Host a partner conference call to answer partner questions about the form.
    * Send emails to remind partners of upcoming due dates.
    * Remind partners about reporting in quarterly newsletter.
    * Follow-up phone calls to non-reporting partners.
    * Send 1-2 reporting reminder emails to provider partners each quarter.

B4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Testing is encouraged as an effective means of refining collections of information to minimize burden and improve utility. Tests must be approved if they call for answers to identical questions from 10 or more respondents. A proposed test or set of tests may be submitted for approval separately or in combination with the main collection of data.

      EPA provided draft versions of the annual reporting form and quarterly reporting form to several partners (fewer than 10) for comment and revised the form accordingly. Upon the completion of each data collection cycle, EPA examines the responses, form, and procedures and identifies potential changes for the following year based on common questions or issues that arise.

B5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or other person(s) who will collect and/or analyze the information for the agency.

	Laura Harwood of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) is the task manager for both the census surveys and can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Roy Sieber serves as ERG's program manager and can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Dr. Lou Nadeau is an ERG senior economist and can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
SECTION II: CONSUMER AWARENESS PHONE SURVEY

B.1.	Describe, including a numerical estimate, the potential respondent universe and any sampling or other respondent selection methods to be used. Data on the number of entities (e.g., establishments, state and local government units, households, persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection had been conducted previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the last collection.

	The target population for these two surveys will be households in the United States. This corresponds to the target population of the WaterSense program. The sampling population will be adults living in households that are surveyed. There are 115 million households in the United States according to the most recently available Census Bureau numbers. From this, EPA will select a sample of 400 respondents for each survey. The justification for this sample size appears in response to Question B.2 below. The sampling frame will be a list provided by a telephone survey contractor. Lists of U.S. households are readily available for this type of survey.
	EPA has not previously conducted these surveys, thus it cannot estimate the expected response based on past experience. Evaluation practitioners have documented that survey response rates have been declining worldwide in recent years. In a recent study of response rates for 205 telephone surveys conducted in the same survey lab over a three-year period, study authors found that response rates varied from fewer than 10 percent to greater than 90 percent response, with the largest number of surveys falling in the 25 to 45 percent range. Further, the study authors found that response rates are affected by contextual variables including:
* Salience of the survey to the population
* Survey length
* Type of sample (e.g., listed versus random-digit dialing)
* Minutes per piece of sample (i.e., effort)
* Amount of time the survey was in the field

A 10-minute increase in survey length results in a 7 percent decrease in the response rate. Since the proposed WaterSense customer awareness survey is short, EPA anticipates a relatively high response rate. In addition, EPA will take actions to maximize response rate (see discussion in Section B.3 below). Given these factors, EPA estimates a response rate of approximately 40 percent for the consumer awareness survey.

B.2.	Describe the procedures for the collection of information including:
      ::	Statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection
      ::	Estimation procedure
      ::	Degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification
      ::	Unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures
      ::	Any use of periodic (e.g., less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce burden.

	Statistical Method for Stratification and Sample Selection

	This section discusses the statistical methods for stratification and sample selection used in the survey. Before discussing those methods, the section begins by explaining EPA's approach to estimating the sample size for this collection.

	Sample Size Estimation

      This section provides estimates of sample size needed to meet a set of specific statistical criteria for the survey data. Choosing a sample size is a three-step process. First, statistical criteria are set; second, an initial sample size is chosen based on the criteria; and third, if necessary, the initial sample size is adjusted based on the population size. The third step, however, is not needed for this survey due to the large universe size. The section begins with a discussion of the statistical criteria and then discusses the estimated initial and adjusted sample sizes.

      The statistical criteria used in choosing a sample size are:
      * Precision: The maximum difference in the parameter of interest between an estimate for that parameter obtained from the sample and the value of that parameter in the population.
      * Confidence: The probability of correctly accepting a true hypothesis.
      * Power: The probability of correctly rejecting a false hypothesis.

      Simultaneously setting values for each criterion will generate a sample size estimate. In general, however, there are limited acceptable choices in terms of power and confidence and, therefore, most of the emphasis is in choosing a reasonable precision. To select sample size using these criteria, EPA has used statistical power analysis techniques (Cohen, 1988). The use of each in choosing a sample size is discussed in what follows.

      Precision

      The precision of a sample is the maximum difference in units of the key question that one is willing be away from the population parameter of interest. The parameter of interest for this survey is awareness of the WaterSense program. There are two key aspects of this parameter:
      * The level of awareness (i.e., what percentage of households are aware of the program?).
      * Whether or not awareness is increasing over time (i.e., is there a statistically significant increase in awareness between surveys?).

      The first reflects estimation of a proportion (e.g., percentage of households aware of the program) and the second reflects a change in a proportion over time. Thus, precision will need to be in terms of percentage points. EPA has determined that the sample size should provide valid data for the second aspect (i.e., change in awareness over time), but should also provide reasonable reliable data to determine the level awareness also. EPA has determined that the sample should be able to detect three to five point change in awareness over time. For example, if awareness is found to be 5 percent in this survey and a subsequent survey finds awareness to be 10 percent, the sample sizes for each survey should be large enough to find that change to be statistically significant.

      Power

The power of a statistical test is one minus the probability of a Type II error (e.g., not rejecting a false hypothesis), or the probability of correctly rejecting a false hypothesis. In this sense, power corresponds to finding the specified effect size (i.e., precision) when that effect in fact exists. Traditional hypothesis tests set, by default, power to 50 percent. Following Cohen's (1988) suggestion, EPA will use 80 percent power. Thus, in terms of the second aspect identified above under precision (change in awareness over time), the sample size will have an 80 percent chance of detecting the specified change in awareness if that change actually occurred.

	Confidence

Confidence is the probability of accepting a true hypothesis. For purposes of sampling, confidence defines the likelihood that the population mean will be contained in the interval around the sample mean defined by the precision for the sample. EPA will use 90 percent confidence in setting the sample size. Furthermore, since EPA is interested in increases in awareness, EPA will use a one-sided confidence interval.

	Sample Size Estimates

	The initial sample size estimates are based on the methods of Cohen (1988), Chapter 6, which provides power analytic methods for detecting differences between proportions over time. EPA combined these methods with the precision, power, and confidence setting discussed above and an assumption on the current level of awareness in the universe. Setting a sample size for proportions requires either having some knowledge of proportion for the population beforehand, or making an assumption on the proportion for the population. EPA expects that awareness of WaterSense is fairly low among the universe and has assumed it to be between two and ten percent. Thus, the sample size should be able to detect three to five percent increase in awareness (precision) between surveys from the assumed baseline levels of awareness at 90 percent confidence and 80 percent power. Table B-3 provides sample sizes needed to detect the increases in awareness for the assumed range of baseline awareness (for the set power and confidence). Based on this table, EPA has selected a sample size of 400 households. Sample sizes in the table that are less than 400 households are depicted in bold italics. As can be seen, a sample of 400 households will allow for detection of a five point increase in awareness from all baseline levels, detection of a four point increase in awareness for baseline awareness in the two to five percent range of baseline awareness, and detection of a three point increase in awareness for very low baseline awareness (2 percent).

            Table B-3. Sample Sizes Needed to Detect the Specified Precision Values for Assumed Values of Baseline Awareness Between Two and Ten Percent at 90 Percent Confidence and 80 Percent Power
              Assumed Baseline Level of Awareness in the Universe
                Precision: Increase in Awareness to be Detected

                            Three Percentage Points
                            Four Percentage Points
                                     Five
                               Percentage Points
                                      2%
                                      323
                                      203
                                      143
                                      3%
                                      419
                                      257
                                      178
                                      4%
                                      512
                                      310
                                      212
                                      5%
                                      602
                                      360
                                      244
                                      6%
                                      689
                                      409
                                      275
                                      7%
                                      774
                                      457
                                      306
                                      8%
                                      857
                                      503
                                      335
                                      9%
                                      938
                                      548
                                      364
                                      10%
                                     1016
                                      592
                                      391
            Note: The values in Table B-3 are calculated using the following formula:

            where n0.1 is equal to 902 (in this case) and is derived from Cohen, Chapter 6, table 6.4.1 (third panel) and reflects a base sample size for one-sided 90 percent confidence and 80 percent power, p are the baseline awareness values, and r are the precision values.

	Sample Allocation

	EPA will allocate the sample across the United States in proportion to the distribution of households in the United States.

	Estimation Procedure

	Estimation of population parameters (means, totals, and variances) will be done by appropriately weighting the sample values. The weight for any responding sample unit can be calculated as:

weight = (weight associated with sampling)  (weight that adjusts for nonresponse)

Estimation of these weights are discussed below, followed by calculation of weighted estimates for the population parameters.

      The weights associated with sampling can be estimated as the reciprocal of the selection probabilities. These can be estimated as:

                        					(6)

where Nh is the population for stratum h and nh is the sample chosen from the stratum h. The second equality indicates that the weight for each sample unit from a specific stratum will be the same as all of sampled units from that stratum.

	To account for nonresponse, EPA will use a weighting class adjustment procedure. Specifically, EPA assumes that the probability that any population unit responds to the survey is the product of the selection probability (above) and a response probability. To estimate response probabilities, EPA will divide the respondents in each survey into a small number of classes (strata). The exact classes for each survey will depend on the nature of the data available for each group. The response probabilities are then:

            			(7)

where k indexes the nonresponse weighting classes. Thus, the weight for a respondent in class k and stratum h becomes:

                        						(8)

      The weighted total for any question in these surveys can be found using the following formula:

                        					(9)

where is the weighted estimate of the population total for variable/question y, h indexes strata, H is the total number of strata used in the survey, j indexes sample respondents within each stratum, Jh is the total number of respondents in stratum h,  is the nonresponse-adjusted sampling weight for the jth unit in stratum h, and yhj is the value for the variable/question y for the jth unit in stratum h. Estimates of the population means can then be found as:

                        					(10)

      Estimation of the variance for the expressions in equations (9) and (10) will require more complex methods. The variance of both expressions will need to account for (a) the fact that each represents a sample estimate of a population parameter and (b) the fact that the response weights defined in (7) are sample quantities (i.e., they are not fixed). To calculate these variances, EPA will use a bootstrap method. Bootstrap methods involve repeated sub-sampling (with replacement) of the selected sample and calculating the variance from the repeated samples. In theory, if the sample is reflective of the population distribution, then repeated sub-sampling of the sample will result in an unbiased and reliable estimate of the variance. OLMS will use the Rao and Wu (1988) method for bootstrap estimation of a variance. This method is summarized in Lohr (1999, p. 307).

	Degree of Accuracy

      See above.

	Unusual Problems

      None.

	Use of Periodic Rate Less Than Annually

	Data collected under these surveys are one-time and are thus less frequent than annual.

 B.3.	Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non-response. The accuracy and reliability of information collected must be shown to be adequate for intended uses. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be provided for any collection that will not yield "reliable" data that can be generalized to the universe studied.
	EPA will employ a number of procedures to maximize response rates and to mitigate issues associated with non-response. A number of nonresponse issues may arise during the data collection process. Table B-4 summarizes issues related to nonresponse and the approach to handling those issues. EPA will analyze the known data on non-respondents (e.g., region, size, etc.) for patterns. This analysis will indicate whether the data collected through the survey will have any potential biases.
Table B-4. Non-response Issues and Techniques Used to Minimize the Impact of Those Issues
Non-response Issue
Techniques to Be Used to Minimize Impact of Non-response
Refusals -- Observational unit refuses to take survey
   *  EPA will be using a professional survey firm that is skilled in converting refusals.
   *  EPA will replace refusals with similar households (e.g., within the same geographic region).
   *  EPA will develop a questionnaire that limits the burden imposed on observational units.
Not available -- Observational unit not available at the time the phone survey firm calls
   *  The survey firm will call the household back up to three times before considering them non-respondents and excluding them from the sample.
   *  EPA will replace refusals with similar households (e.g., within the same geographic region).
Refusal to answer specific questions -- Observational unit refuses to answer specific questions
   *  EPA will be using a professional survey firm that is skilled in converting refusals.
   *  EPA will develop a questionnaire that limits the burden imposed on observational units.

B.4.	Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken.

	EPA will pre-test the survey instruments using a small set of households. The purpose of the pre-tests will be to assess the questionnaire validity in collecting the necessary data.
	No other tests of procedures or methods will be used for these surveys. EPA expects that the sampling scheme and the implementation process are relatively straightforward and should be accomplished without need for testing the methods.

B5. 	Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical 	aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or 	other person(s) who will collect and/or analyze the information for the agency.

   	Dr. Lou Nadeau, ERG,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
SECTION III: CONSUMER SURVEY (INTERNET-BASED)

B1. 	Describe, including a numerical estimate, the potential respondent universe and any 	sampling or other respondent selection method to be used. Data on the number of 	entities (e.g., establishments, state and local government units, households, 	persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample 	are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the 	strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rate for the collection as 	a whole. If the collection has been conducted previously, include the actual response 	rate achieved during the last collection.

	The purpose of this survey is to increase EPA's understanding of market barriers that exist with water-efficient products and services, develop messages that will address these barriers, and test the results of the findings in key markets. EPA will invite participants to provide feedback on promotions and messaging. EPA will use the data gathered to develop messaging for public service announcements.
	Approximately four hundred US adults will be invited to participate in the research effort. Only homeowners will be sampled, since renters are unlikely to be responsible for purchasing low-flow plumbing equipment. Data will be stratified by whether the individuals live in water rich or water poor areas of the nation.
	The goal of this research is to determine which methods of communicating water efficient-products are most effective (i.e., translate into the most positive attitudes toward and intentions to buy) to U.S. consumers. We are not trying to estimate a population parameter (e.g., such as general awareness of the WaterSense logo), rather we are comparing efficacy of communication techniques. Rule of thumb in this case is that we will need to use 20-30 respondents in each communication condition.
	We will be drawing our sample using an electronic panel of homeowners and will not be using a random sample; thus, will not have information regarding nonresponse. Nonresponse bias is of concern when attempting to generalize from the sample estimate to a population parameter, but becomes somewhat unimportant when the goal is to determine differences between treatment groups.

B2.	Describe the procedures for the collection of information including: (a) statistical 	methodology for stratification and sample selection; (b) estimation procedures; (c) 	degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification; (d) unusual 	problems requiring specialized sampling procedures; and (e) any use of periodic 	(e.g., less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce burden.

      a)    We will not be using a statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection since the goal of the research is to determine differences between groups.
      b)    We will use Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) to test for differences between groups and to control for covariates.
      c)    A "by-invitation-only" only panel recruitment method is used by the on-line panel provider that will be collecting the data for this study. This means that only pre-validated individuals participate. Thus, a cross-section of "real" consumers, as opposed to regular survey takers, are included in the sample. The panel to be used does not employ an "open" online panel recruitment method which simply allows individuals to self-select into the study.
      d)    There are no unusual problems that will require a specialized sample procedures.
      e)    Data will not be collected periodically. This is a one-time study.

B3. 	Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non-	response. The accuracy and reliability of information must be shown to be adequate 	for intended use. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be 	provided for any collection that will not yield "reliable" data that can be generalized 	to the universe studied.

	Since our purpose is to test for differences between groups, generalizability to the population at large (i.e., external validity) is less important than assurance that the experimental condition created the effect (i.e., internal validity). In such situations as ours, nonresponse bias is not a major concern in the study design.

B4. 	Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Testing is 	encouraged as an effective means of refining collections of information to minimize 	burden and improve utility. Tests must be approved if they call for answers to 	identical questions from 10 or more respondents. A proposed test or set of tests may 	be submitted for approval separately or in combination with the main collection of 	data.

	Pretesting of the questionnaire design and procedures will be conducted in two different ways. First, using the methods described in Dillman (2000), we will use a verbal protocol with less than ten home owners to gain a better understanding of how the target population is interpreting our questions and whether we have included the appropriate response categories. Second, we will pretest the on-line survey to insure that it is working properly, is user-friendly and that the data can be downloaded adequately.

*Don A. Dillman (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, NY.

B5.	Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical 	aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or 	other person(s) who will collect and/or analyze the information for the agency

   	Dr. Lou Nadeau, ERG,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

REFERENCES

Cohen, Jacob, 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2[nd] Edition, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, N.J.

Lohr, Sharon, 1999. Sampling: Design and Analysis, Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA.

Rao, J.N.K., and C.F.J. Wu, 1988. "Resampling Inference with Complex Survey Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83: 231-241.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 39 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10345-10350]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04358]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77222; File No. SR-BATS-2016-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto, To Amend Its Rules Regarding the Auction Process for
Securities Subject to an Initial Public Offering

February 24, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 10, 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On February 22,
2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\3\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposes to correct a
technical error regarding incorrect terminology used in a footnote
and to clarify a sentence regarding an order with a time-in-force of
RHO that would be converted to an order with a time-in-force of Day
under the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 11.23 entitled
``Auctions'' to: (i) Modify the definition of the term ``Eligible
Auction Order'' under paragraph (a)(8) to refine the types of orders
that may participate in an auction for a BATS listed corporate security
\4\ in an initial public offering (``IPO'') on the Exchange (``IPO
Auction'') and make a related change to Exchange Rule 11.1, Hours of
Trading and Trading Days; (ii) extend the Quote-Only Period \5\ under
paragraph (d)(1)(A); (iii) state that the Quote-Only Period may be
extended in the event of an Exchange technical or systems issue under
proposed paragraph (d)(2)(B)(iv); and (iv) make technical changes to
paragraphs (b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A), and (d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A BATS listed corporate security is a security listed on the
Exchange pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Exchange's Rules that is not
an Exchange Traded Product (``ETP'') listed on the Exchange pursuant
to Exchange Rule 14.11. See also infra note 7.
    \5\ See Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.23 entitled
``Auctions'' to: (i) Modify the definition of the term ``Eligible
Auction Order'' under paragraph (a)(8) to refine the types of orders
that may participate in an IPO Auction and make a related change to
Exchange Rule 11.1, Hours of Trading and Trading Days; (ii) extend the
Quote-Only Period under paragraph (d)(1)(A); (iii) state that the
Quote-Only Period may be extended in the event of an Exchange technical
or systems issue under proposed paragraph (d)(2)(B)(iv); and (iv) make
technical changes to paragraphs (b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A), and (d)(2).
Eligible Auction Orders
    The Exchange proposes to refine the types of orders that may
participate in an IPO Auction for a BATS listed corporate security by
amending the definition of Eligible Auction Orders under Exchange Rule
11.23(a)(8) to either reject, convert, or ignore certain types of
orders, as set forth below. As proposed, Limit Orders \6\ and BATS
Market Orders,\7\ the two main types of orders offered by the Exchange,
would be allowed to participate in an IPO Auction for a BATS listed
corporate security. The Exchange does not propose to amend the types of
Eligible Auction Orders that may participate in an auction for a newly
listed Exchange Traded Product.\8\ The Exchange believes refining the
types of orders processed in an IPO Auction and/or placed onto the BATS
Book \9\ following such IPO Auction would simplify and reduce the
complexity of the IPO Auction for BATS listed corporate securities. The
Exchange believes doing so would aid in ensuring a robust but
streamlined IPO Auction process for a newly listed corporate
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(1).
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(2).
    \8\ An Exchange Traded Product is a security that is listed on
the Exchange pursuant to Rule 14.11.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Types of Orders to be Accepted or Rejected. The term Eligible
Auction Order is currently defined under Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(8) as
any Market-On-Open (``MOO''),\10\ Limit-On-

Open (``LOO''),\11\ Late-Limit-On-Open (``LLOO''),\12\ Market-On-Close
(``MOC''),\13\ Limit-On-Close (``LOC''),\14\ or Late-Limit-On-Close
(``LLOC'') \15\ order that is entered in compliance with its respective
cutoff for an Opening or Closing Auction,\16\ any Regular Hours Only
(``RHO'') \17\ order prior to the Opening Auction, any Limit or Market
Order not designated to exclusively participate in the Closing Auction
entered during the Quote-Only Period of an IPO Auction,\18\ and any
Limit or Market Order not designated to exclusively participate in the
Opening or Closing Auction entered during the Quote-Only Period of a
Halt Auction.\19\ The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of
Eligible Auction Orders to refine the types of orders that may
participate in an IPO Auction for a BATS listed corporate security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(16).
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(14).
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(12).
    \13\ See Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(15).
    \14\ See Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(13).
    \15\ See Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(11).
    \16\ The Opening and Closing Auction processes are described in
Exchange Rules 11.23(b) and (c).
    \17\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(7).
    \18\ See Exchange Rules 11.23(d)(1)(A).
    \19\ Id. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.1 to make
clear that it will not accept BATS Market Orders that are not
Eligible Auction Orders prior to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is currently the case, Limit Orders and BATS Market Orders
entered during the Quote-Only Period would be allowed to participate in
an IPO Auction for a BATS listed corporate security provided they do
not also include one or more of the modifiers described below that
would result in rejection. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
exclude under proposed subparagraph (a)(8)(A) to Rule 11.23 the
following types of orders from participation in an IPO Auction and to
reject such orders: Stop Orders \20\ and Stop Limit Orders; \21\ Pegged
Orders,\22\ Mid-Point Peg Orders,\23\ Market Maker Peg Orders \24\ and
Supplemental Peg Orders; \25\ Minimum Quantity Orders \26\ and
Discretionary Orders; \27\ MOC, LOC and LLOC orders; and orders with a
time-in-force of Fill-or-Kill (``FOK'') \28\ and orders with a time-in-
force of Good-'til-Day (``GTD'') with an expiration time earlier than
4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.\29\ Such orders entered to participate in an
IPO Auction would be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(17).
    \21\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(18).
    \22\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(8).
    \23\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(9).
    \24\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(16).
    \25\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(19).
    \26\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(5).
    \27\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(10) [sic].
    \28\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(6) [sic].
    \29\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to reject orders with the
above characteristics from participating in the IPO Auction because
doing so will aid in reducing systems complexity and risk associated
both with completing the IPO Auction and with transferring any
unexecuted portion of such orders to the BATS Book once the auction is
complete. These orders are also not commonly utilized as compared to
other types of orders and the rejection of such orders should not have
a significant impact on Members. In addition, the Exchange believes
these types of orders contain certain attributes that are not
compatible with the process of an IPO Auction. For example, Stop Orders
and Stop Limit Orders are not eligible for execution until their stop
price is triggered by an execution, which is an attribute that is not
compatible with the IPO Auction process, as that process will result in
the first execution for an IPO Security. In addition, Pegged Orders,
Mid-Point Peg Orders, Market Maker Peg Orders, and Supplemental Peg
Orders are priced in relation to the National Best Bid or Offer
(``NBBO''). An NBBO is not established until after the IPO Auction is
complete and secondary trading begins. Therefore, the participation of
these orders is also incompatible with the IPO Auction process.
    The Exchange also proposes to reject Minimum Quantity Orders and
Discretionary Orders entered to participate in an IPO Auction. In sum,
Minimum Quantity Orders will only execute if a minimum number of shares
can be obtained while a Discretionary Order includes both a displayed
price and a non-displayed discretionary price. Orders entered to
participate in an IPO Auction need to represent the full trading
interest for the security subject to the IPO Auction because that
auction relies on matching buy and sell orders based on their displayed
price and full displayed size. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable to reject Discretionary Orders and Minimum Quantity Orders
entered to participate in the IPO Auction as these types of orders
contain variables (i.e., minimum execution size or a non-displayed
discretionary price) that are not compatible with the IPO Auction
process.
    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to reject orders with a
time-in-force of FOK, a time-in-force of GTD with an expiration time
earlier than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, as well as MOC, LOC, and LLOC
orders that are entered to participate in an IPO Auction. Orders with a
time-in-force of FOK require that they be executed in full or will be
cancelled upon receipt by the Exchange. Orders with a time-in-force of
FOK are therefore not compatible with the IPO Auction process as orders
participating in the IPO Auction process may not be fully executed in
the auction and seeking to honor the intent of the instruction would
complicate the processing of the IPO Auction. The Exchange also
believes it is reasonable to reject GTD Orders with an expiration time
earlier than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time entered to participate in an IPO
Auction. Doing so would prevent the possibility of entry of GTD Orders
with an expiration time either prior to, during or immediately
following the IPO Auction, thereby reducing system complexity
associated with processing such orders. Lastly, the Exchange also
believes it is reasonable to reject MOC, LOC, and LLOC orders entered
to participate in an IPO Auction because the terms of those orders
require that they participate in the Exchange's closing auction
process. The Exchange notes that such orders are already excluded from
an IPO Auction based on the definition of Eligible Auction Order,
however, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to include such orders
in the list with other rejected types of orders to avoid potential
confusion.
    Types of Orders to be Converted. The Exchange also proposes to
adopt subparagraph (a)(8)(B) to Rule 11.23, which would set forth the
types of orders that would be converted by the Exchange for purposes of
participating in the IPO Auction for a BATS listed corporate security.
First, orders with a time-in-force of Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'')
\30\ will be converted as follows: A Market Order with a time-in-force
of IOC will be converted to a MOO and a Limit Order with a time-in-
force of IOC will be converted to a LOO. Second, orders with a time-in-
force of RHO will be converted to orders with a time-in-force of Day.
Third, any orders eligible to be routed will be converted to a BATS
Only Order.\31\ Upon completion of the IPO Auction, any remainder not
executed in the auction will be placed on the BATS Book, executed,
cancelled or routed away in accordance with the converted terms of the
order. Such orders would not revert back to the original type modifier
the User included with the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(4).
    \31\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the types of orders entered to participate in the
IPO Auction that the Exchange proposes to reject under proposed Rule

11.23(a)(8)(A) are less commonly used and the rejection of such orders
should not have a significant impact on Members. In contrast, the types
of orders the Exchange proposes to convert into other types of orders
are more commonly used by Members. Also, the types of orders that the
Exchange proposes to convert to do not materially deviate from the type
of order that was originally entered. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable to convert rather than reject the above types of orders
because it would accommodate those Members that have automated their
systems to send orders to the Exchange without significantly altering
the operation of the order from what the Member originally instructed.
Such Members may also not be able to re-submit a rejected order with
the correct modifier in time to participate in the IPO Auction.
Therefore, the Exchange is concerned that rejecting, rather than
converting those types of orders as proposed, would inappropriately
burden those Members and deter their participation in an IPO Auction.
    First, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to convert Market
Orders with a time-in-force of IOC to MOOs and Limit Orders with a
time-in-force of IOC to LOOs and notes that each of these orders would
operate in substantially similar ways. Each of the above orders would
be eligible for execution in the IPO Auction and any remainder would be
cancelled once the IPO Auction is complete. Second, the Exchange also
believes that converting the time-in-force of RHO to the time-in-force
of Day is also reasonable based on the similarity between these times-
in-force. For instance, both orders with a time-in-force of RHO and
orders with a time-in-force of Day are ineligible for execution until
the start of Regular Trading Hours \32\ at 9:30 a.m.\33\ and are
cancelled at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.\34\ By converting the order,
however, the Exchange is able to reduce the number of types of orders
that will be handled in an IPO Auction and/or placed on the BATS Book
following such IPO Auction. Lastly, the Exchange also believes it is
reasonable to convert routable orders to BATS Only Orders because there
would be no other markets to route orders to from the time of the IPO
Auction until secondary trading commences. Any remainder of a routable
order that is converted to a BATS Only Order would be posted to the
BATS Book upon completion of an IPO Auction. At that time, the Member
could cancel the order and resubmit a routable order if such Member
wished to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(w).
    \33\ An IPO Auction will only occur after 9:30 a.m. Eastern
Time.
    \34\ The Exchange notes that any portion of a market order with
a time-in-force of RHO will be cancelled immediately following any
auction in which it is not executed. See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(7).
The Exchange does not accept market orders with a time-in-force of
Day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Modifiers to be Ignored. The Exchange also proposes to adopt
subparagraph (a)(8)(C) to Rule 11.23, which would set forth the
modifiers on an order that has been entered to participate in an IPO
Auction that would be ignored for purposes of completing the IPO
Auction. Such modifiers would be permanently ignored with respect to an
order, including after placement on the BATS Book, unless otherwise
specified in the proposed Rule. First, as proposed, Match Trade
Prevention (``MTP'') modifiers \35\ will not be applied until the IPO
Auction is complete but will be applied in the event any unexecuted
portion is placed on the BATS Book. Pursuant to Rule 11.9(f), any
incoming order designated with an MTP modifier will normally be
prevented from executing against a resting opposite side order also
designated with an MTP modifier and originating from the same User.
However, during an IPO Auction the MTP Modifier would be ignored and
such orders may be matched against each other. Upon completion of the
IPO Auction, an MTP modifier will be recognized and any remainder not
executed in the auction will be placed on the BATS Book and executed or
cancelled in accordance with the original MTP modifier appended to the
order. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to ignore an MTP modifier
during the IPO Auction as preventing such a Member's orders from
executing against each other during an IPO Auction would add
unnecessary complexity. Most Members that utilize MTP modifiers have
configured their connectivity to the Exchange to add the MTP Modifier
to all of their orders. If the Exchange were to reject orders with a
MTP modifier it would impose an inappropriate burden on Members who
utilize such modifiers, thereby impairing their ability to participate
in the IPO Auction. The Exchange notes that any remainder not executed
in the IPO Auction will be executed or cancelled in accordance with the
original MTP modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, an instruction to treat an order as an Attributable Order
will be ignored, meaning that any such order's execution will be
displayed anonymously.\36\ The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
ignore such instructions as orders entered into an IPO Auction as not
displayed individually but instead as aggregated interest in the
Exchange's data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See also Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule
4753(b)(4) (stating that orders executed as part of the Nasdaq Halt
Cross shall be trade reported anonymously).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, an ISO instruction or a Post Only instruction included with
a Limit Order will also be ignored during the IPO Auction. The Exchange
believes it is reasonable to ignore an ISO instruction are such
instructions are incompatible with an IPO Auction. For instance, an ISO
instruction informs the Exchange that the sender simultaneously routed
one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against
the full displayed size of any protected bid or offer with a price that
is superior to the limit price of the limit order identified as an ISO.
The Exchange is the sole market for a security subject to an IPO
Auction up until the time secondary trading commences and the ISO
designation is therefore incompatible with the IPO Auction. Similarly,
BATS Post Only Order is an order that instructs the Exchange not to
remove liquidity from the BATS Book, provided that BATS Post Only
Orders do remove liquidity under certain circumstances outlined in Rule
11.9(c)(6). In an IPO Auction, orders are matched and there is no true
``adder'' or ``remover'' of liquidity. Accordingly, a Post Only
instruction is incompatible with the IPO Auction. In contrast to orders
under proposed Rule 11.23(a)(8)(A) discussed above, which the Exchange
proposes to reject, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
ignore an ISO instruction or a Post Only instruction on an order rather
than to reject such orders because such orders are sufficiently common
and may require additional programming by Members in order to avoid
sending such instructions solely for an IPO Auction.
    Lastly, the Maximum Remove Percentage of a Partial Post Only at
Limit Order \37\ as well as the replenishment range of a Reserve Order
with a Random Replenishment instruction will be ignored during the IPO
Auction.\38\ The Exchange also

believes it is reasonable to ignore these order instructions for the
same reason it proposes to reject Discretionary Orders and Minimum
Quantity Order under proposed Rule 11.23(a)(8)(A) discussed above.
Orders entered to participate in an IPO Auction need to represent the
full trading interest for the security subject to the IPO Auction
because that auction relies on matching buy and sell orders based on
their displayed prices and full displayed size. Therefore, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to ignore the Maximum Remove Percentage of a
Partial Post Only at Limit Order and the replenishment range of a
Reserve Order with a Random Replenishment instruction entered to
participate in the IPO Auction as these types of order instructions
contain variables (i.e., maximum remove requirements or non-displayed
size) that are not compatible with the IPO Auction process. In contrast
to Discretionary Orders and Minimum Quantity Orders under proposed Rule
11.23(a)(8)(A) discussed above, which the Exchange proposes to reject,
the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to ignore the Maximum
Remove Percentage of a Partial Post Only at Limit Order and the
replenishment range of a Reserve Order with a Random Replenishment
instruction rather than to reject such orders because such orders can
still be handled consistent with the overall intent of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(7). In sum, the Maximum Remove
Percentage enables a User to enter a Partial Post Only at Limit
Order instructing the Exchange to also remove liquidity from the
BATS Book at the order's limit price up to a designated percentage
of the remaining size of the order after any execution pursuant to
paragraph (A) of Rule 11.9(c)(7). See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(7)(B).
    \38\ Random Replenishment is an instruction that a User may
attach to an order with Reserve Quantity where replenishment
quantities for the order are randomly determined by the System
within a replenishment range established by the User. In particular,
the User entering an order into the System subject to the Random
Replenishment instruction must select a replenishment value and a
Max Floor. The initial Display Quantity will be the Max Floor. The
Display Quantity of an order when replenished will be determined by
the System randomly selecting a round lot number of shares within a
replenishment range that is between: (i) the Max Floor minus the
replenishment value; and (ii) the Max Floor plus the replenishment
value. See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of MTP modifiers discussed above, all modifiers
listed under proposed Rule 11.23(a)(8)(C) will not be further
considered with respect to an order upon completion of the IPO Auction.
Any remainder not executed in the auction will be placed on the BATS
Book, executed, cancelled or routed away in accordance with the
modified terms of the order.
Extension of Quote-Only Period
    The Exchange proposes to extend the Quote-Only Period for an IPO
Auction under Exchange Rule 11.23(d)(1)(A). The Quote-Only Period is
the designated period of time prior to a Halt Auction, a Volatility
Closing Auction, or an IPO Auction during which Users may submit orders
to the Exchange for participation in the auction.\39\ With regard to an
IPO Auction, the Quote-Only Period currently begins fifteen (15)
minutes plus a short random period prior to such Auction.\40\ The
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.23(d)(1)(A) to extend the Quote-Only
Period for an ETP such that it commences at 8:00 a.m., which is the
beginning of the Exchange's Pre-Opening Session. With regard to an ETP,
the Exchange does not believe that there is reason to restrict quoting
in such products to a specified amount of time prior to the auction and
that additional time is warranted. In particular, the Exchange believes
that allowing a longer Quote-Only Period will encourage the entry of
orders prior to an IPO Auction for a newly issued ETP, which typically
have low participation rates especially when compared to IPO Auctions
for corporate securities. Further, while an IPO Auction for a corporate
security is typically conducted at least 30 minutes after the
commencement of Regular Trading Hours, an IPO Auction for a newly
issued ETP is typically conducted at the beginning of Regular Trading
Hours (i.e., 9:30 Eastern Time), and thus may not afford much time for
participants to enter orders prior to such auction. For these reasons,
the Exchange believes that a longer Quote-Only Period for ETPs is
warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(17).
    \40\ See Exchange Rule 11.23(d)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the Quote-Only Period for a BATS
listed corporate security to begin at a time announced in advance by
the Exchange that shall be between fifteen (15) and thirty (30) minutes
plus a short random period prior to such IPO Auction. The Exchange
believes that extending the Quote-Only period as proposed is reasonable
as it would provide market participants more time to enter orders to
participate in the IPO Auction. Extension of the Quote-Only Period
would also enable the underwriters more time to evaluate the scope of
demand for, and supply of, the security subject to the IPO Auction
(``IPO Security''), in a manner that will allow it to make more
informed decisions about the appropriate time to initiate the opening
of the IPO Security through the IPO Auction. The Exchange would
determine the length of time of the Quote-Only Period for a BATS listed
corporate security (i.e., what time between fifteen (15) and thirty
(30) minutes) in consultation with the issuer of the IPO security and
would announce the length of time for the Quote-Only Period in advance
of the commencement of such period.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The scope of market participants notified regarding the
anticipated commencement the Quote-Only Period (or extension of
Quote-Only Period, as described below) would include but would not
be limited to Members of the Exchange. Such notice would also
include those market participants, individuals or entities that have
subscribed to the Exchange's notification system. The Exchange
intends to send notifications regarding the Quote-Only Period via
email, as it does with most public notifications today. The Exchange
notes that it does, in certain circumstances, post information on
its public Web site in addition to email dissemination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) [sic] Currently, the Exchange may extend the Quote-Only Period
under Rule 11.23(d)(2)(B) for an IPO Auction beyond the above
timeframes where: (i) There are unmatched Market Orders on the Auction
Book; (ii) the underwriter requests an extension; or (iii) where the
Indicative Price moves the greater of 10% or fifty (50) cents in the
fifteen (15) seconds prior to the auction. The Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 11.23(d)(2)(B) to enable it to also extend the Quote-Only
Period in the event of a technical or systems issue at the Exchange
that may impair the ability of Users to participate in the IPO Auction
or of the Exchange to complete the IPO Auction. The Exchange believes
it is reasonable to be able to extend the Quote-Only Period in the
event of a technical or systems issue at the Exchange as such an issue
may prevent market participants from entering orders during the Quote-
Only Period, resulting in less liquidity which may prevent the
underwriters from adequately accessing the trading interest of the IPO
Security. In such case, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
extend the Quote-Only Period in the event of a technical or systems
issue to provide market participants the adequate time to enter orders
to participate in the IPO auction. The Exchange also proposes to adopt
paragraph (C) to codify its intention to notify market participants
regarding extensions to the Quote-Only Period. As proposed, the
Exchange will notify market participants in the event of any extension
to the Quote-Only Period pursuant to paragraph (B), including details
regarding the circumstances and length of the extension.\42\ In
connection with this change, the Exchange proposes to designate current
paragraph (C) of Rule 11.23(d)(2) as paragraph (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Changes
    The Exchange also proposes to make the following technical changes
to Rule 11.23:
     Amend paragraphs (b)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(A) to replace the
phrase ``starting at 8:00 a.m., the beginning of the Pre-

Opening Session'' with ``as set forth in Rule 11.1''. Paragraph
(b)(1)(A) sets forth when a User may enter or cancel orders that are to
participate in the opening auction. Paragraph (c)(1)(A) sets forth when
a User may enter or cancel orders that are to participate in the
closing auction. Rule 11.1 governs when orders may be entered into the
System and when they may be eligible for execution. The Exchange
believes cross-referencing Rule 11.1 within paragraphs (b)(1)(A) and
(c)(1)(A) would assist in avoiding investor confusion as Rule 11.1
provides additional detail on when and orders may be entered into the
System
     Amend paragraph (d)(2)(A) to replace with term ``quotation
only period'' with the defined term ``Quote-Only Period''.
    Neither of the above proposed changes would amend the meaning or
operation of paragraphs (b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A), or (d)(2)(A) of Rule
11.23. The Exchange simply proposes these changes to make the rules
easier to understand and avoid potential investor confusion.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\43\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\44\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system. The Exchange believes amending the definition
of Eligible Auction Orders to reject, convert, or ignore certain types
of orders in connection with the IPO Auction process for a BATS listed
corporate security would promote just and equitable principles of trade
by simplifying and reducing the complexity of the auction process as
well as the process of transferring unexecuted interest to the BATS
Book following the auction process. The Exchange also believes the
proposed limitations remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system by appropriately
limiting the types of orders that may participate to those types of
orders that are consistent with the purpose of an IPO Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes extending the Quote-Only period would promote
just and equitable principles of trade, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system by providing market participants with additional time to
enter orders to participate in the IPO Auction. The Exchange believes
that allowing a longer Quote-Only Period for ETPs will encourage the
entry of orders prior to an IPO Auction for a newly issued ETP.
Extension of the Quote-Only Period for a corporate security would
similarly provide market participants with additional time to enter
orders to participate in the IPO Auction and would also enable the
underwriters more time to evaluate the scope of demand for, and supply
of, the IPO Security, in a manner that will allow it to make more
informed decisions about the appropriate time to initiate the opening
of the IPO Security through the IPO Auction.
    The Exchange believes that extending the Quote-Only Period in the
event of a technical or systems issue at the Exchange also remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system. A technical or systems issue may prevent
market participants from entering orders during the Quote-Only Period
or prevent the Exchange from successfully completing the IPO Auction.
In such case, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to extend the
Quote-Only Period to provide market participants with additional time
to enter orders and access the market for the IPO Security after the
technical or systems issue is remedied.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the technical changes to
paragraphs (b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A), or (d)(2)(A) of Rule 11.23 are
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \45\ because they are
intended to make the rules easier to understand and avoid potential
investor confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes its proposed rule change would not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposal would increase competition by reducing the complexity of its
IPO Auction process for BATS listed corporate securities through
reducing the number of allowable types of orders. In addition, the
Exchange believes that the proposed extensions of the Quote-Only Period
would also increase competition by providing additional time for market
participants to enter orders to participate in the IPO Auction,
potentially resulting in improved liquidity and price discovery.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the technical changes to paragraphs
(b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A), or (d)(2)(A) of Rule 11.23 would not impose any
burden on completion as they are not intended to amend the meaning or
operation of these rules.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:

(A) By Order Approve or Disapprove Such Proposed Rule Change, or

(B) Institute Proceedings To Determine Whether the Proposed Rule Change
Should Be Disapproved

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2016-17 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-BATS-2016-17. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-BATS-2016-17,
and should be submitted on or before March 21, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\46\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04358 Filed 2-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 41138]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0208]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0048

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0048,
Vessel Reporting Requirements; without change. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 9,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2022-0208] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2022-0208], and
must be received by September 9, 2022.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Vessel Reporting Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0048.
    Summary: Owners, Charterers, Managing Operators, or Agents of U.S.
vessels must immediately notify the Coast Guard if they believe the
vessel may be lost or in danger. The Coast Guard uses this information
to investigate the situation and, when necessary, plan appropriate
search and rescue operations.
    Need: Section 2306(a) of 46 U.S.C. requires the owner, charterer,
managing operator, or a agent of vessel of the United States to
immediately notify the Coast Guard if: (1) There is reason to believe
that the vessel may have been lost or imperiled, or (2) more than 48
hours have passed since last receiving communication from the vessel.
These reports must be followed by written confirmation submitted to the
Coast Guard within 24 hours. The implementing regulations are contained
in 46 CFR part 4.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 138 hours a
year. There is no proposed change to the reporting requirements of this
collection. The reporting requirements and methodology for calculating
burden, remains unchanged.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: June 30, 2022.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-14699 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47165-47166]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2191-000]

Brady Wind II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Brady Wind II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 3, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17102 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P