[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53435-53437]
[DOCID:fr11se06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

August 30, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG06-76-000.
    Applicants: Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC.
    Description: Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC submits a Notice of
Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EG06-77-000.
    Applicants: Noble Ellenberg Windpark, LLC.
    Description: Noble Ellenberg Windpark, LLC submits a Notice of
Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EG06-78-000.
    Applicants: Noble Altona Windpark, LLC.
    Description: Noble Altona Windpark, LLC submits a Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EG06-79-000.
    Applicants: Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC.
    Description: Noblie Bliss Windpark, LLC submits a notice of self-
certification of exempt wholesale generator status.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER97-4345-020; ER98-511-008.
    Applicants: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company; OGE Energy Resources
Inc.
    Description: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co et al. resubmits its 7/
25/06 filing of proposed revisions to their respective market-based
rate tariffs to allow the OGE Companies to sell power at market-based
rates.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-911-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas & Electric Company submits a compliance
Electric Refund Report.
    Filed Date: 08/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060828-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-451-001; ER06-641-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits a compliance filing

providing for revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff pursuant
to Commission 7/26/06 order.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1162-002.
    Applicants: Select Energy New York, Inc.
    Description: Select Energy New York Inc submits Substitute Second
Revised Sheet 1 & 2 as well as Substitute First Revised Sheet 3 in
response to FERC's letter dated 7/26/06 with regards to its 6/20/06
original submittal.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1219-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc; Unitil Energy Systems, Inc.;
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc et al. submit revisions to their
respective portions of the filing made on 6/30/06 as directed by the
Commission in Order 676.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 08, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1252-001: ER06-1201-001.
    Applicants: E.ON U.S. LLC; E.ON U.S. Services, Inc; Louisville Gas
& Electric Company.
    Description: E.ON U.S. LLC on behalf of E.ON U.S. Services et al
submits a revised and executed version of its interconnection agreement
with East Kentucky Power Cooperative.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1393-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp notifies
FERC of the revised transmission Access Charges effective 6/4/06 to
implement the revised Transmission Revenue Requirement of Southern
California Edison.
    Filed Date: 08/23/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060825-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1407-000.
    Applicants: Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC.
    Description: Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC submits an application for
order accepting initial tariff, waiving regulations and granting
Blanket Approvals and request for expedited consideration.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1408-000.
    Applicants: Noble Ellenberg Windpark, LLC.
    Description: Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC submits an application
for order accepting initial tariff, waiving regulations and granting
Blanket Approvals and request for expedited consideration.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1409-000.
    Applicants: Noble Altona Windpark, LLC.
    Description: Noble Altona Windpark, LLC submits an application
accepting initial tariff, waiving regulations and granting blanket
approvals and request for expedited consideration.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1410-000; ER06-1411-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Power
Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Nuclear Palisades LLC submits an application
for order accepting initial market-based tariff, waiving regulations,
and granting blanket approvals, and Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing LLC
submits a revised tariff.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1412-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc
submits proposed revisions to Section 43.7 of its Open Access
Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third
Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1413-000.
    Applicants: Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC.
    Description: Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC submits an application
for order accepting initial tariff, waiving regulations, and granting
blanket approvals and request for expedited consideration.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1414-000.
    Applicants: Cinergy Marketing & Trading, LP.
    Description: Cinergy Marketing & Trading, LP submits its
application for waivers of Parts 41, 101 and 141 of FERC's regulations
and for prior blanket authorization for future issuances of securities
and assumption of liabilities.
    Filed Date: 08/23/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1415-000.
    Applicants: Western Systems Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Western Systems Power Pool Inc requests FERC to amend
the WSPP Agreement to include Barclays Bank PLC, Central Arizona Water
Conservation District et al. as members of the WSPP.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1416-000.
    Applicants: Detroit Edison Company.
    Description: The Detroit Edison Co submits its First Revised Sheet
23 et al to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 5.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1417-000.
    Applicants: Weyerhaeuser Company.
    Description: Weyerhaeuser Co submits its Second Amended Petition
for Market Based Rate Authority, Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule
Waivers & Blanket Authority, designated as Rate Schedule 1 pursuant to
FERC's 11/17/03 Order.
    Filed Date: 08/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1418-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed revisions to their Open Access Transmission and Energy
Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1419-000.

    Applicants: MeadWestvaco Virginia Corporation.
    Description: MeadWestvaco Virginia Corp submits its Petition for
Market-Based Rate Authority, Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule,
Waivers and Blanket Authority designated as Rate Schedule FERC 1
pursuant to FERC's 11/17/03 Order.
    Filed Date: 08/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 18, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings.
    Docket Numbers: ES06-63-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Company submits its application for
authorization to issue and sell up to $600 million of bonds, notes,
debentures, guarantees or other evidences of long-term indebtedness.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Number: ES06-64-000.
    Applicants: Noble Ellenberg Windpark, LLC; Noble Bliss Windpark
LLC; Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC; Noble Altona Windpark, LLC.
    Description: Noble Altona Windpark LLC, Noble Bliss Windpark LLC et
al. submits its application for authorization to issue securities and
assume liabilities and request for expedited consideration.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060829-0200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(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. E6-14950 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64960-64963]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22656]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78849; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.;
Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Options
Regulatory Fee

September 15, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On July 20, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to modify the Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78453 (August 1,
2016), 81 FR 51954, 51955 (August 5, 2016) (``Notice''). The ORF is
designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange
for the supervision and regulation of Members' customer options
activity. The Exchange has committed to monitor the amount of
revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination
with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the
Exchange's total regulatory costs. See id. at 51955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, BZX proposed to amend the amount of its ORF and
expand its application to non-Members.\4\ The proposed rule change was
immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\5\ The Commission published notice of
filing of the proposed rule change in the Federal Register on August 5,
2016.\6\ To date, the Commission has not received any comment letters
on the Exchange's proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Member'' refers to ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
BZX Rule 1.5(n).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). Although the proposed rule change was
effective upon filing, BZX indicated that it would not implement the
fee until August 1, 2016. See Notice, supra note 3, at 51955. On
August 22, 2016, the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change to
delay the implementation of the modified ORF until February 1, 2017.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78746 (September 1, 2016),
81 FR 62225 (September 8, 2016) (SR-BatsBZX-2016-52).
    \6\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 51954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission is
hereby: (1) Temporarily suspending the proposed rule change; and (2)
instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposal.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule Change

    Previously, BZX assessed a per-contract ORF on each Member for all
``customer'' range options transactions executed or cleared by the
Member, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction
occurred.\7\ In BatsBZX-2016-42, BZX proposed to lower the amount of
the ORF from $0.0010 to $.0008 per contract side and also expanded its
application to non-Members. Specifically, BZX proposed to modify and
expand the application of its ORF to include all options transactions
of any Member or non-Member, regardless of the exchange on which such
transaction occurs, that clear at the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') in the ``customer'' range.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id. at 51955.
    \8\ See id. Previously, BZX applied the ORF ``to each Member for
all options transactions executed and cleared, or simply cleared by
the Member . . . .'' As proposed, BZX deleted the reference to
``executed'' and instead applied the ORF to all trades from any
Member or non-Member that clears in the ``customer'' range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal, the Exchange stated that expanding the
application of the ORF to non-Members would remove an incentive for
Members to clear their trades through non-Members to avoid the
obligation to pay the ORF to BZX.\9\ The Exchange further stated that
applying the ORF to Member and non-Member customer transactions would
prevent options market participants from avoiding becoming a Member of
BZX based on a desire to avoid being assessed the ORF by BZX.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the BZX Proposal

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\11\ at any time within
60 days of the

date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\12\ the Commission summarily
may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-regulatory
organization made thereby 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission believes it is appropriate in the public interest to
temporarily suspend BZX's proposal to assess the ORF to non-Member
customer transactions and solicit comment on and evaluate further
whether it is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to BZX.
    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like BZX's present proposal, they are
required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's basis under
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
exchange.\13\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges file
their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements . . . .''
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, exchange proposed rule changes are subject to
Section 6 of the Act, including Section 6(b)(4), which requires the
rules of an exchange to ``provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other persons using its facilities,'' and Section 6(b)(5), which
requires the rules of an exchange to, among other things, be ``not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers . . . .'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In justifying its proposal, the Exchange stated in its filing that
its proposal is reasonable because the ORF supports the Exchange's
market surveillance programs that evaluate activity across all options
markets.\16\ BZX stated that it analyzes all options market activity in
order to effectively meet its statutory obligation to enforce
compliance by Members and their associated persons with the Act and the
rules of the Exchange.\17\ The Exchange also argued that the proposed
rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
would avoid market participants clearing their transactions through
non-Members in order to avoid paying an ORF to BZX.\18\ The Exchange
further stated that applying the fee to both Member and non-Member
activity will eliminate an incentive for options market participants to
make exchange membership decisions based on a desire to avoid paying
the ORF to BZX.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 51956.
    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also stated that assessing an ORF on non-Members will
allow it to charge an ORF on transactions that were initially submitted
for clearing to a clearing broker that is a Member of BZX, but that
were subsequently ``flipped'' to the account of a non-Member for
clearing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id. at 51955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange noted that it has heard allegations from
market participants that some options exchanges may also assess an ORF
on all options transactions cleared by OCC in the customer range
regardless of whether such transactions are executed or cleared by an
exchange Member.\21\ The Commission notes, however, that no rules
presently maintained by any exchange currently apply the ORF to non-
Members in the manner that BZX is now proposing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 51956.
    \22\ See id. at note 15 (noting that no options exchange's
current rule text applies in such a manner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's fee change, the Commission
intends to further consider whether assessing the ORF on transactions
of non-Members--where no BZX Member executed or cleared the trade--is
consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a national
securities exchange under the Act. In particular, the Commission will
consider whether the proposed rule change satisfies the standards under
the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an
exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities;
not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers; and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule changes.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the BZX
Proposal

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\25\ and 19(b)(2) of the Act \26\ to determine whether the Exchange's
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. Further,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\27\ the Commission is
hereby providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under
consideration. The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute
disapproval proceedings at this time in view of the significant legal
and policy issues raised by the proposal. Institution of disapproval
proceedings does not indicate, however, that the Commission has reached
any conclusions with respect to the issues involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, pursuant to BZX's proposal, the Exchange would
assess the ORF on Members and non-Members for all of their transactions
cleared at OCC in the ``customer'' range. As noted above, the Act and
the rules thereunder require that an exchange's rules, among other
things, provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers;
and not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Commission solicits
comment on whether the Exchange's ORF fee proposal is

consistent with these standards and whether BZX has sufficiently met
its burden in presenting a statutory analysis of how its proposal meets
these standards.
    In particular, the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration include whether BZX's proposal is consistent with the
following sections of the Act:
     Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities;'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers;'' \29\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission is considering whether a sufficient
regulatory nexus exists between the Exchange and a non-Member to
justify imposition of the ORF on such non-Member. If a non-Member does
not execute a trade on BZX's market, or utilize the services of a
Member of BZX to either execute the trade on another market or clear
the trade, then the non-Member would not be utilizing the facilities of
the exchange or the services of a Member of the Exchange. Further, when
it initially adopted an ORF, the Exchange noted that the ORF would be
``designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange
of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer options
business, including performing routine surveillances and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities'' \31\ (emphasis added). The Commission notes,
however, that the Exchange's proposed expansion of the ORF to non-
Members deviates from this principle in that the exercise of an
exchange's regulatory jurisdiction and the application of its fee
schedule is generally confined to the exchange's Members and persons
using its facilities.\32\ In other words, BZX's proposal preliminarily
appears to expand a fee that is specifically designed to fund the
exchange's regulatory operations in part, by assessing the fee to a
class of person over whom the Exchange does not have any direct
regulatory responsibility or jurisdiction and who have not directly or
indirectly accessed the Exchange's facilities or utilized the services
of a Member of the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal's application of
the ORF to non-Members who do not use the facilities of the Exchange or
the services of a Member of the Exchange may prevent the Commission
from making a finding that the proposal is consistent with the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74214 (February 5,
2015), 80 FR 7665 (February 11, 2015) (File No. SR-BATS-2015-08).
    \32\ See, e.g., Section 6(b)(4), which addresses fees that an
exchange charges ``among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities.'' 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \33\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(ii) (setting forth the standard
for disapproval of a proposed rule change as follows: ``The
Commission shall disapprove a proposed rule change of a self-
regulatory organization if it does not make a finding described in
clause (i).''). Section 19(b)(2)(C)(i) provides that ``[t]he
Commission shall approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory
organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of [the Act] and the rules and
regulations issued under [the Act] that are applicable to such
organization.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by October 12, 2016.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by October 26, 2016. The
Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of
the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set
forth in the Notice,\34\ in addition to any other comments they may
wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Commenters' views on the appropriateness of an options
exchange assessing an ORF on options transactions executed at an away
market that are cleared by OCC in the ``customer'' range that are
neither executed, nor cleared, by a Member of the exchange assessing
the ORF;
     Commenters' views on the Exchange's assertion that ``there
is a strong nexus between the ORF and the Exchange's regulatory
activities with respect to its Members', as well as non-Members',
customer trading activity.'' \35\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 51955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Commenters' views on the Exchange's argument that ``[i]f
the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a non-Member
would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated exchange. In
addition, applying the fee to all Members' and non-Members' activity
across all market [sic] will avoid options participants from
terminating their membership status on or not becoming a [sic] Members
of certain exchanges simply to avoid being assessed [sic] ORF.'' \36\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether any other options exchange is currently assessing
an ORF on non-Members for their options transactions that are cleared
by OCC in the ``customer'' range in contravention to a stated rule of
such exchange; and
     Finally, whether any options exchange currently assesses
an ORF on a clearing member that does not ultimately clear a customer
transaction, but merely transfers it to the account of a non-Member for
clearance and settlement, and, if so, whether doing so is consistent
with the current ORF rule text of such options exchange.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule changes, 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-BatsBZX-2016-42 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-BatsBZX-2016-42. The
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 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-42 and should
be submitted on or before October 12, 2016. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by October 26, 2016.

VI. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\37\ that File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-42, be and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22656 Filed 9-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18923]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3370-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Washington; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Washington (FEMA-3370-EM), dated March 24,
2014, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 24, 2014, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Washington resulting from flooding and mudslides
beginning on March 22, 2014, and continuing, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such an emergency exists in the State of Washington.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated area. Specifically, you are authorized
to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category
B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael
J. Hall, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Washington have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Snohomish County for emergency protective measures (Category B),
limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-07566 Filed 4-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54633-54634]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-18]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice
announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Request
(ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and
its expected burden. On May 29, 2020, FRA published a notice providing
a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
October 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular ICR by
selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments''
or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information
Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On May 29, 2020, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 85 FR 32440. FRA
received one comment from Rio Metro Regional Transit Authority
suggesting that the current grant application be improved to eliminate
redundancies. It recommended that FRA capture from applicants
additional information in the project narrative so that the Statement
of Work (SOW) can be eliminated. After careful consideration, FRA
determined that this recommendation could not be implemented as the
documents serve distinct functions. The primary purpose of the project
narrative is to address statutory grant evaluation and selection
criteria and the primary purpose of the SOW is to determine project
readiness for obligations. Therefore, FRA plans on continuing both the
project narrative and SOW.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.10(b); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summaries below describe the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Grants Management Requirements for Federal Railroad
Administration. Grant Awards and Cooperative Agreements.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0615.
    Abstract: FRA solicits grant applications for projects including,
but not limited to, preconstruction planning activities, safety
improvements, congestion relief, improvements of grade crossings, and
rail line relocation, as well as projects that encourage development,
expansion, and upgrades to passenger and freight rail infrastructure
and services. FRA funds projects that meet FRA and government-wide
evaluation standards and align with the DOT Strategic Plan.
    FRA administers award agreements for both construction and non-
construction projects that will result in benefits or other tangible
improvements in rail corridors, service, safety, and technology. These
projects include completion of preliminary engineering environmental,
research and development, final design, and construction.
    FRA requires systematic and uniform collection and submission of
information, as approved by OMB, to ensure accountability of Federal
assistance provided by FRA. Through this information collection, FRA
will measure Federal award recipients' performance and results,
including expenditures in support of agreed-upon activities and
allowable costs outlined in FRA Notice of Grant Award. This information
collection includes OMB-required reports and documentation, as well a
additional forms and submission to compile evidence relevant to
addressing FRA's important policy challenges, promoting cost-
effectiveness in FRA programs, and providing effective oversight of
programmatic and financial performance. FRA issues and manages awards
in compliance with 2 CFR part 200; Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
    Form(s): All FRA forms are located at FRA's public website; all SF
forms are located at Grants.gov. FRA forms 30 (FRA Assurance and
Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other
Responsibility Matters and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements), 31 (Grant
Adjustment Require Form), 32 (Service Outcome Agreement Annual
Reporting), 33 (Final Performance Report), 34 (Quarterly Progress
Report), 35 (Application Form), 217 (Categorical Exclusion Worksheet),
229 (NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership Supplier Scouting--FRA
Item Opportunity Synopsis), 251 (Applicant Financial Capability
Questionnaire), and 252 (Payment Summary Spreadsheet). SF forms 270
(Request for Advance or Reimbursement), 424 (Application for Federal
Assistance), 424 A (Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs),
424B (Assurance for Non-Construction Programs), 424C (Budget
Information for Construction Programs), 424D (Assurances for
Construction

Programs), 425 (Federal Financial Report), and LLL (Disclosure of
Lobbying Activities).
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Generally includes States, d local governments and
railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: Varied.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 6,551 responses.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 88,293.50 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$3,619,150.57.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-19330 Filed 9-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P