[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16406-16407]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVI...  Project No. 13733-000.
FFP Missouri 8, LLC..............  Project No. 13752-000.
Solia 6 Hydroelectric, LLC.......  Project No. 13768-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has received three preliminary permit applications
deemed filed on May 18, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed projects to
be located at the Army Corps of Engineers' Montgomery Lock and Dam on
the Ohio River, in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The applications were
filed by Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVI for Project No. 13733, FFP
Missouri 8, LLC, for Project No. 13752, and Solia 6 Hydroelectric, LLC,
for Project No. 13768.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any
document received after regular business hours is considered filed
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2)
(2010).
    \2\ Montgomery Hydro, LLC, also filed a permit application to
study the same site for Project No. 13792, which is deemed filed on
May 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 24, 2011, at 10 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the
Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine
the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The
Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided
in section 4.37 of its regulations.\3\ The priority established by this
drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with
identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing
the results of the drawing.

    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6776 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8720-8727]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03222]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74247; File No. SR-BATS-2014-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 11.9, 11.12, and 11.13
of BATS Exchange, Inc.

February 11, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rules 11.9, 11.12, and 11.13
to clarify and to include additional specificity regarding the current
functionality of the Exchange's System,\3\ including the operation of
its order types and order instructions, as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Exchange Rule 1.5(aa) defines ``System'' as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
    On June 5, 2014, Chair Mary Jo White asked all national securities
exchanges to conduct a comprehensive review of each order type offered
to members and how it operates.\4\ The proposals set forth below,
therefore, are the product of a comprehensive review of Exchange system
functionality conducted by the Exchange and are intended to add
additional clarity and specificity regarding the current functionality
of the Exchange's System,\5\ including the operation of its order types
and order instructions. The Exchange is not proposing any substantive
modifications to the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Mary Jo White, Chair, Commission, Speech at the Sandler
O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange ad Brokerage Conference,
(June 5, 2014) (available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#.VD2HW610s6Y).
    \5\ Exchange Rule 1.5(aa) defines ``System'' as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes proposed below are designed to update the rulebook to
reflect current System functionality and include: (i) Making clear that
orders with a Time-in-Force (``TIF'') of Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'')
can be routed away from the Exchange; (ii) specifying the methodology
used by the Exchange to determine whether BATS Post Only Orders \6\
will remove liquidity from the BATS Book; \7\ (iii) adding additional
detail to and re-structuring the description of Pegged Orders; (iv)
adding additional detail to the description of Mid-Point Peg Orders;
(v) adding additional detail to the description of Discretionary
Orders; (vi) amending Rule 11.12, Priority of Orders, and Rule 11.13,
Order Execution, to provide additional specificity and enhance the
structure of Exchange rules describing the process for ranking,
executing and routing orders; (vii) adding additional detail to the
description of orders subject to Re-Route functionality; and (viii)
making a series of conforming changes to Rules 11.9, 11.12 and 11.13 to
update cross-references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 11.9(c)(6).
    \7\ As defined in Rule 1.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Routable Orders With Time in Force of Immediate-or-Cancel
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 11.9(b)(1) to update the
description of the TIF of IOC to make clear that orders with a TIF of
IOC are routable even though such TIF indicates an instruction to
execute an order immediately in whole or in part and/or cancel it back.
Under current rules, the TIF of IOC indicates that an order is to be
executed in whole or in part as soon as such order is received and the
portion not executed is to be cancelled. The Exchange proposes to
expand upon the description of IOC to specify that an order with such
TIF may be routed away from the Exchange but that in no event will an
order with such TIF be posted to the BATS Book. The Exchange notes that
IOC orders routed away from the Exchange are in turn routed as IOC
orders. The Exchange also notes that current Rule 11.13(a)(2) already
includes reference to routable IOCs, and the proposed modifications to
the rule text are intended to add further specificity that IOCs are
routable.
    In addition to the change described above, the Exchange proposes to
make clear in Rule 11.9(b)(6) that an order with a TIF of FOK is not
eligible for routing. Although orders with a TIF of FOK are generally
treated the same as IOCs, the Exchange does not permit routing of
orders with a FOK because the Exchange is unable to ensure the
instruction of FOK (i.e., execution of an order in its entirety)
through the routing process.
    Finally, in connection with these changes, the Exchange also
proposes to modify current Rule 11.13(a)(2) (to be re-numbered as Rule
11.13(b)(2)) to add the cancellation of an unfilled balance of an order
as one possible outcome after an order has been routed away. Rule
11.13(a)(2) currently describes other variations of how the Exchange
handles an order after it has been routed away, but does not
specifically state that it may be cancelled after the routing process,
which would be the case with an order submitted to the Exchange with a
TIF of IOC.
Computation of Economic Best Interest for BATS Post Only Orders
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 11.9(c)(6) to specify the
methodology used by the Exchange to determine whether BATS Post Only
Orders will remove liquidity from the Exchange's order book. Under the
Exchange's current rules, a BATS Post Only Order is an order that an
entering User \8\ intends to be posted to the BATS Book, and thus will
not ordinarily remove liquidity from the Exchange. However, BATS Post
Only Orders will remove liquidity from the BATS Book if such execution
is in the economic best interests of the User entering the BATS Post
Only Order, taking into account applicable fees and rebates.\9\
Specifically, as set forth in Rule 11.9(c)(6), BATS Post Only Orders
remove liquidity from the BATS Book if the value of ``price
improvement'' associated with such execution equals or exceeds the sum
of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that
would be provided if the order posted to the BATS Book and subsequently
provided liquidity. The Exchange proposes three changes to the
description of BATS Post Only Orders to make clear the methodology used
in calculating whether a BATS Post Only Order should remove liquidity
on entry. The Exchange notes that each of these changes will conform
the Exchange's rule governing BATS Post Only Orders with Rule
11.6(n)(4) of the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(cc), a User as ``any Member
or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
System pursuant to Rule 11.3.''
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67093 (June 1,
2012), 77 FR 33798 (June 7, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-018) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of rule change to amend the
operation of BATS Post Only Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to clarify that rather than requiring
price improvement, which indicates an execution at a better price level
than an order's limit price, the Exchange calculates the value of the
overall execution taking into account applicable fees and rebates.
Accordingly, to the extent the fee and rebate structure on its own
(i.e., even at the limit price) makes it economically advantageous to
remove liquidity rather than post to the BATS Book and subsequently
provide liquidity, the Exchange will allow a BATS Post Only Order to
remove liquidity.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to make clear that this methodology
is applied only to securities priced at $1.00 and above, and thus, that
all BATS Post Only Orders in securities priced below $1.00 remove
contra-side liquidity. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allow
BATS Post Only Orders to remove liquidity in lower priced securities
because the Exchange's fee structure never has provided a significant
rebate or charged a significant fee for such orders. Because the
execution cost economics are relatively flat, the Exchange believes it
is more efficient to simply allow all orders in such securities to
remove liquidity.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to make clear its methodology for
determining the applicable fees and rebates given the fact that the
Exchange maintains a tiered

pricing structure. Under the Exchange's current tiered pricing
structure, an entering User may receive a variable rebate for adding
liquidity depending on the User's volume during the month in question.
The Exchange determines whether Users qualify for higher rebates at the
end of the month, looking back at the User's activity during the month.
To account for this variable rebate structure and to ensure that the
Exchange does not determine that an execution is in an entering User's
economic best interests when, in fact, it is not due to a different
rebate or fee \10\ ultimately achieved by the User, the Exchange
applies the highest possible rebate provided and highest possible fee
charged for such executions on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to
make this rebate and fee assumption clear in the Exchange's rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that its current fee structure does not
have a variable fee depending on trading activity during the month.
If, in the future, the Exchange implements such a fee structure the
Exchange will use the highest possible fee for purposes of Rule
11.9(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pegged Orders
    The Exchange proposes to restructure Rule 11.9(c)(8), related to
Pegged Orders, and to add additional detail to such Rule regarding the
handling of such orders. With respect to restructuring, the Exchange
currently offers two types of Pegged Orders pursuant to Rule
11.9(c)(8), Primary Pegged Orders and Market Pegged Orders, and
believes that each types of Pegged Order would be easier to understand
if described in separate paragraphs. Given the proposal to split the
Rule to address Primary Pegged Orders and Market Pegged Orders
separately, the Exchange also proposes to add an additional lead-in
sentence that summarizes the operation of Pegged Orders generally.
Mid-Point Peg Orders
    The Exchange proposes to add additional specificity regarding Mid-
Point Peg Orders and the handling of such orders when the market is
locked or crossed. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add language
stating that upon instruction from a User Mid-Point Peg Orders will not
execute when the market is locked. The Exchange makes this feature
optional because while some Users may prefer not to execute in a locked
market given that there is no real mid-point in such a situation and it
might be evidence of a pricing disparity in a security, other Users may
prefer an execution. The Exchange also proposes to state that Mid-Point
Peg Orders are not eligible to execute when the NBBO is crossed. The
Exchange does not execute Mid-Point Peg Orders in a crossed market
because the pricing of the mid-point, and the security generally, is
uncertain in such a situation.
Discretionary Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend the description of Discretionary
Orders contained in Rule 11.9(c)(10) and to add additional detail
regarding the execution of such orders, as set forth below. First, the
current description indicates that a Discretionary Order has a
displayed price and size and a non-displayed ``discretionary price''.
The Exchange proposes to make clear that although a Discretionary Order
may have a displayed price and size as well as a discretionary price, a
Discretionary Order may also be fully non-displayed, and thus, will
have a non-displayed ranked price as well as a discretionary price. In
addition to reflecting the ability to have a non-displayed
Discretionary Order, the Exchange proposes various minor wording
changes to improve the description of Discretionary Orders to make
clear that such orders use the minimum amount of discretion when
executing against incoming orders.
    The Exchange also proposes to make clear how a Discretionary Order
interacts with a BATS Post Only Order or Partial Post Only at Limit
Order entered at the displayed or non-displayed ranked price of such
Discretionary Order that does not remove liquidity on entry pursuant to
Rule 11.9(c)(6) or Rule 11.9(c)(7), respectively, by stating that the
Discretionary Order is converted to an executable order and will remove
liquidity against such incoming order. Similar to the Re-Route
functionality described below, due to the fact that Discretionary
Orders contain more aggressive prices at which they are willing to
execute, the Exchange treats Discretionary Orders as aggressive orders
that would prefer to execute at their displayed or non-displayed ranked
price than to forgo an execution due to applicable fees or rebates.
Accordingly, in order to facilitate transactions consistent with the
instructions of its Users, the Exchange executes resting Discretionary
Orders (and certain orders with a Re-Route instruction, as described
below) against incoming orders, when such incoming orders would
otherwise forego an execution. The Exchange notes that the
determination of whether an order should execute on entry against
resting interest, including against resting Discretionary Orders, is
made prior to determining whether the price of such an incoming order
should be adjusted pursuant to the Exchange's price sliding
functionality pursuant to Rule 11.9(g). In other words, an execution
will have already occurred as set forth above before the Exchange would
consider whether an order could be displayed and/or posted to the BATS
Book, and if so, at what price.
Examples--Discretionary Order Executes Against BATS Post Only Orders
    Assume that the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.05, and the Exchange's BBO is
$9.99 by $10.06. Assume that the Exchange receives a non-routable order
to buy 100 shares of a security at $10.00 per share designated with
discretion to pay up to an additional $0.05 per share.
     Assume that the next order received by the Exchange is a
BATS Post Only Order to sell 100 shares of the security at priced at
$10.03 per share. The BATS Post Only Order would not remove any
liquidity upon entry pursuant to the Exchange's economic best interest
functionality, and would post to the BATS Book at $10.03. This would,
in turn, trigger the discretion of the resting buy order and an
execution would occur at $10.03. The BATS Post Only Order to sell would
be treated as the adder of liquidity and the buy order with discretion
would be treated as the remover of liquidity.
     Assume the same facts as above, but that the incoming BATS
Post Only Order is priced at $10.00 instead of $10.03. As is true in
the example above, the BATS Post Only Order would not remove any
liquidity upon entry pursuant to the Exchange's economic best interest
functionality. Rather than cancelling the incoming BATS Post Only Order
to sell back to the User, particularly when the resting order is
willing to buy the security for up to $10.05 per share, the Exchange
executes at $10.00 the BATS Post Only Order against the resting buy
order with discretion. As is also true in the example above, the BATS
Post Only Order to sell would be treated as the liquidity adder and the
buy order with discretion would be treated as the liquidity remover. As
set forth in more detail below, if the incoming order was not a BATS
Post Only Order to sell, the incoming order could be executed at the
ranked price of the Discretionary Order without restriction and would
therefore be treated as the liquidity remover.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to codify the process by which
it handles all incoming orders that interact with Discretionary Orders.
First, the Exchange proposes to codify its

handling of a contra-side order that executes against a resting
Discretionary Order at its displayed or non-displayed ranked price or
that contains a time-in-force of IOC or FOK and a price in the
discretionary range by expressly stating that such an incoming order
will remove liquidity against the Discretionary Order. Second, the
Exchange proposes to codify its handling of orders that are intended to
post to the BATS Book at a price within a Discretionary Order's
discretionary range. This includes, but is not limited to, BATS Post
Only Orders and Partial Post Only at Limit Orders. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to codify current System functionality whereby any
contra-side order with a time-in-force other than IOC or FOK and a
price within the discretionary range but not at the displayed or non-
displayed ranked price of a Discretionary Order will be posted to the
BATS Book and then the Discretionary Order will remove liquidity
against such posted order.
Examples--Discretionary Order Executes Against Non-Post Only Orders
    Assume that the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.05, and the Exchange's BBO is
$9.99 by $10.06. Assume that the Exchange receives an order to buy 100
shares of a security at $10.00 per share designated with discretion to
pay up to an additional $0.05 per share.
     Assume that the next order received by the Exchange is a
BATS Only Order to sell 100 shares of the security with a TIF other
than IOC or FOK priced at $10.03 per share. The BATS Only Order would
not remove any liquidity upon entry and would post to the BATS Book at
$10.03. This would, in turn, trigger the discretion of the resting buy
order and an execution would occur at $10.03. The BATS Only Order to
sell would be treated as the adder of liquidity and the buy order with
discretion would be treated as the remover of liquidity.
     Assume the same facts as above, but that the incoming BATS
Only Order is priced at $10.00 instead of $10.03. The BATS Only Order
would remove liquidity upon entry at $10.00 per share pursuant to the
Exchange's order execution rules, as described in detail below.
Contrary to the examples set forth above, the BATS Only Order to sell
would be treated as the liquidity remover and the resting buy order
with discretion would be treated as the liquidity adder. The Exchange
notes that this example operates the same whether an order contains a
TIF of IOC, FOK or any other TIF.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify the current description of the
Discretionary Order by eliminating language stating, ``[i]f a
Discretionary Order is not executed in full, the unexecuted portion of
the order is automatically re-posted and displayed in the BATS Book
with a new timestamp, at its original displayed price, and with its
non-displayed discretionary price offset.'' The Exchange believes this
language is unnecessarily confusing because the unexecuted portion of
Discretionary Orders does not actually re-post solely because part of
the order was executed. Rather, the remaining portion will remain
resting on the BATS Book without being removed from the BATS Book.
    Finally, because Discretionary Orders have both a price at which
they will be ranked and an additional discretionary price, the Exchange
proposes to expressly state how the Exchange handles a routable
Discretionary Order by stating that such an order will be routed away
from the Exchange at its full discretionary price. As an example,
assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.05 and the Exchange's BBO is $9.99 by
$10.06. If the Exchange receives a routable Discretionary Order to buy
at $10.00 with discretion to pay up to an additional $0.05 per share,
the Exchange would route the order as a limit order to buy at $10.05.
Any unexecuted portion of the order would be posted to the BATS Book
with a ranked price of $10.00 and discretion to pay up to $10.05.
Priority and Execution Algorithm
    With respect to the Exchange's priority and execution algorithm,
the Exchange is proposing various minor and structural changes that are
intended to emphasize the processes by which orders are accepted,
priced, ranked and executed, as well as a new provision related to the
ability of orders to rest at locking prices that is consistent with the
changes to provisions related to the operation of Discretionary Orders
described above. First, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 11.12,
Priority of Orders, to make clear that the ranking of orders described
in such rule is in turn dependent on Exchange Rule 11.13(a) which
discusses the pricing and execution of orders. The Exchange believes
that this has always been the case under Exchange rules based on the
reference to the ``Execution Process'' in Rule 11.12; however, this
reference did not include a cross-reference to Rule 11.13. The Exchange
also proposes to change the reference within Rule 11.12 to refer to
ranking rather than executing equally priced trading interest, as the
Rule as a whole is intended to describe the manner in which resting
orders are ranked and maintained, specifically in price and time
priority, while awaiting execution against incoming orders. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed modifications substantively
modify the operation of the rules; however, the Exchange believes that
it is important to clarify that the ranking of orders is a separate
process from the execution of orders.
    The Exchange also proposes to specify in Rule 11.12(a)(2)(C) that
the priority afforded to Pegged Orders is applicable to all non-
displayed Pegged Orders. The Exchange recently began accepting Primary
Pegged Orders that can be displayed, and if so displayed, the Exchange
ranks such orders with all other displayed orders. Thus, the Exchange
proposes to clarify that reference to Pegged Orders in 11.12(a)(2)(C),
which have lower priority than the displayed size of limit orders and
non-displayed orders, is a reference specifically to non-displayed
Pegged Orders.
    Further, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 11.12(a)(3), which
recognizes existing match trade prevention rules that optionally
prevent the execution of orders from the same User (i.e., based on the
User's ``Unique Identifier'', as set forth in Rule 11.9(f)) by stating
that in such a case the System will not permit such orders to execute
against one another regardless of priority ranking. Proposed Rule
11.12(a)(3) is based on EDGX Rule 11.9(a)(3). The Exchange also
proposes changes to current Rule 11.9(a)(3) and (a)(4) to re-number
such rules as (a)(4) and (a)(5) as well as to clarify that orders
retain and lose ``time'' priority under certain circumstances, as
opposed to priority generally, because retaining or losing price
priority does not require the same descriptions, as price priority will
always be retained unless the price of an order changes.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to re-structure Rule 11.13, which
currently governs both execution and routing logic on the Exchange, by
more clearly delineating between execution (to be contained in new
paragraph (a)) and routing (to be contained in new paragraph (b)) and
by adding additional sub-headings to the execution section. In this
connection, the Exchange proposes to move language contained within
Rule 11.13 to the beginning of new paragraph (a) such that the language
is more generally applicable to the rules governing execution.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to relocate language stating that
any order falling within the parameters of this paragraph shall be
referred to as ``executable'' and that an order will be

cancelled back to the User if, based on market conditions, User
instructions, applicable Exchange Rules and/or the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder, such order is not executable, cannot be
routed to another Trading Center pursuant to Rule 11.13(b) (as proposed
to be re-numbered) or cannot be posted to the BATS Book. The proposed
sub-headings for paragraph (a) regarding order execution are intended
to delineate between the various rules and National Market System
(``NMS'') plans that may render an order executable or not, including
Regulation NMS and Regulation SHO. The Exchange is proposing to add a
cross-reference in Rule 11.13(a)(3) to its rules related to the Limit
Up-Limit Down Plan, which is contained in Rule 11.18(e).
    The Exchange proposes to adopt paragraph (C) of Rule 11.13(a)(4) to
provide further clarity regarding the situations where orders are not
executable, which although covered in other existing rules, would focus
on the incoming order on the same side of a displayed order rather than
the resting order that is rendered not executable because it is
opposite such displayed order. The proposed provision would replace
existing text set forth in Rule 11.13(a)(1) to acknowledge that, under
certain circumstances, there can be locking interest on the Exchange
but that such interest will not be displayed by the System as a locked
market. Proposed paragraph (C) would further state that if an incoming
order is on the same side of the market as an order displayed on the
BATS Book and upon entry would execute against contra-side interest at
the same price as such displayed order, such incoming order will be
cancelled or posted to the BATS Book and ranked in accordance with Rule
11.12. The Exchange does not allow non-displayed interest that locks a
contra-side displayed order to execute at such price to avoid an
apparent priority issue.
    To demonstrate the functionality in place on the Exchange described
above, assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.11. Assume the Exchange has a
posted and displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security priced at
$10.10 per share and a resting non-displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a
security priced at $10.11 per share. For purposes of this example,
assume the resting non-displayed bid has not selected the Re-Route
functionality, which, as described in further detail below, could make
a resting order executable against an incoming BATS Post Only Order
under certain circumstances.
     Assume that the next order received by the Exchange is a
BATS Post Only Order to sell 100 shares of the security priced at
$10.11 per share. The BATS Post Only Order would not remove any
liquidity upon entry pursuant to the Exchange's economic best interest
functionality, would post to the BATS Book, and would be displayed at
$10.11. The display of this order would, in turn, make the resting non-
displayed bid not executable at $10.11.
     Assume the next order received by the Exchange is an order
to sell 100 shares of the security priced at $10.11 per share. The
order would not remove any liquidity upon entry because there is a
displayed order to sell at $10.11 posted on the BATS Book and thus, by
rule, the Exchange does not maintain any executable buy interest priced
at $10.11. If the later arriving order to sell at $10.11 contained a
TIF other than IOC or FOK, it would be posted to the BATS Book and
displayed at $10.11. If the later arriving order to sell at $10.11
contained a TIF of IOC or FOK, it would be cancelled back to the User.
     To the extent the BATS Book is in the state set forth to
conclude the examples above, with a non-executable bid to buy at $10.11
and one or more offers to sell displayed by the Exchange at $10.11;
there are several potential outcomes. For instance, any incoming order
to buy at $10.11 or higher \11\ will execute against the displayed
order(s) to sell, as such resting orders are fully executable and
displayed as available offers on the BATS Book. Once all displayed
liquidity to sell at $10.11 has been executed on the Exchange, the
resting non-displayed bid to buy at $10.11 will again be fully
executable. Similarly, if the resting displayed orders to sell that are
priced at $10.11 are cancelled then the resting non-displayed bid to
buy at $10.11 will again be fully executable at that price. As
described in the text and examples below, an incoming sell order priced
at $10.10 or better will execute against the resting bid at $10.105.
Finally, the User representing the non-displayed bid to buy at $10.11
could cancel the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that an incoming order for purposes of
comparison to a resting order can be any incoming order unless the
terms of that incoming order itself preclude execution. For
instance, in this example, an incoming buy order could be routable
or non-routable, the order could be selected for potential display
or could include instructions not to display the order, the order
could have a discretionary price, or several other characteristics.
Upon entry, unless the terms of the order preclude removing
liquidity, such as a BATS Post Only order, the characteristics that
govern the way that the order may be handled once posted to the
Exchange's order book are irrelevant and any incoming buy order
priced at $10.11 or higher will execute against the resting offers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to modify and place in new paragraph
(D) rule language contained in current Rule 11.13(a)(1) that governs
the price at which non-displayed locking interest is executable in
order to further clarify such rule text. Specifically, for bids or
offers equal to or greater than $1.00 per share, in the event that an
incoming order is a market order or is a limit order priced more
aggressively than an order displayed on the Exchange, the Exchange will
execute the incoming order at, in the case of an incoming sell order,
one-half minimum price variation less than the price of the displayed
order, and, in the case of an incoming buy order, at one-half minimum
price variation more than the price of the displayed order. As is true
under existing functionality, this order handling is inapplicable for
bids or offers under $1.00 per share. Proposed paragraph (D) does not
substantively modify the existing operation of the System but is
intended to better describe in rule text the process for matching an
incoming order against an order on the BATS Book when there is a
displayed order on the same side of the market as the incoming order.
    To demonstrate the operation of this provision, again assume the
NBBO is $10.10 by $10.11. Assume the Exchange has a posted and
displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security priced at $10.10 per
share and a resting non-displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security
priced at $10.11 per share.
     Assume that the next order received by the Exchange is a
BATS Post Only Order to sell 100 shares of the security priced at
$10.11 per share. The BATS Post Only Order would not remove any
liquidity upon entry pursuant to the Exchange's economic best interest
functionality, would post to the BATS Book and would be displayed at
$10.11. The display of this order would, in turn, make the resting non-
displayed bid not executable at $10.11.
     If an incoming offer to sell 100 shares at $10.10 is
entered into the BATS Book, the resting non-displayed bid originally
priced at $10.11 will be executed at $10.105 per share, thus providing
a half-penny of price improvement as compared to the order's limit
price of $10.11. The execution at $10.105 per share also provides the
incoming offer with a half-penny of price improvement as compared to
its limit price of $10.10. The result would be the same for an incoming
market order to sell or any other incoming limit order offer priced at
$10.10 or below, which would execute against the non-

displayed bid at a price of $10.105 per share. As above, an offer at
the full price of the resting and displayed $10.11 offer would not
execute against the resting non-displayed bid, but would instead either
cancel or post to the BATS Book behind the original $10.11 offer in
priority.
    The Exchange notes that it is proposing to add descriptive titles
to paragraphs (A) and (B) of Rule 11.13(a)(4), which describe the
process by which executable orders are matched within the System.
Specifically, so long as it is otherwise executable, an incoming order
to buy will be automatically executed to the extent that it is priced
at an amount that equals or exceeds any order to sell in the BATS Book
and an incoming order to sell will be automatically executed to the
extent that it is priced at an amount that equals or is less than any
order to buy in the BATS Book. These rules further state that an order
to buy shall be executed at the price(s) of the lowest order(s) to sell
having priority in the BATS Book and an order to sell shall be executed
at the price(s) of the highest order(s) to buy having priority in the
BATS Book. The Exchange emphasizes these current rules only insofar as
to highlight the interconnected nature of the priority rule.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify existing paragraph (b) of Rule
11.13 to re-number it as paragraph (b)(5) and to clarify the Exchange's
rule regarding the priority of routed orders. Paragraph (b) currently
sets forth the proposition that a routed order does not retain priority
on the Exchange while it is being routed to other markets. The Exchange
believes that its proposed clarification to paragraph (b) is
appropriate because it more clearly states that a routed order is not
ranked and maintained in the BATS Book pursuant to Rule 11.12(a), and
therefore is not available to execute against incoming orders pursuant
to Rule 11.13.
Re-Route Functionality
    The Exchange currently allows Users to submit various types of
limit orders to the Exchange that are processed pursuant to current
Exchange Rule 11.13, as described elsewhere in this proposal. To the
extent an order has not been executed in its entirety against the BATS
Book, Rule 11.13 describes the process of routing marketable limit
orders \12\ to one or more Trading Centers, including a description of
how the Exchange treats any unfilled balance that returns to the
Exchange following the first attempt to fill the order through the
routing process. If not filled through routing, and based on the order
instructions, the unfilled balance of the order may be posted to the
BATS Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Market orders are also routed away pursuant to Rule 11.13,
however the Exchange is not proposing any changes to the treatment
of routed market orders at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.13(a)(4) (to be re-numbered as Rule
11.13(b)(4) pursuant to this proposal), under certain circumstances the
Exchange will re-route an order that has been posted to the BATS Book
if subsequently locked or crossed by another accessible Trading Center.
The Exchange offers two optional Re-Route instructions, the Super
Aggressive Re-Route instruction and the Aggressive Re-Route
instruction. The Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction reflects the
willingness of the sender of the routable order posted to the BATS Book
to route to away Trading Centers and to remove liquidity from such
Trading Centers any time such order is locked or crossed (i.e., rather
than passively waiting for an execution on the BATS Book). The
Aggressive Re-Route instruction subjects an order to the routing
process after being posted to the BATS Book only if the order is
subsequently crossed by an accessible Trading Center (rather than if
the order is locked or crossed). The Exchange proposes two changes to
its rules to reflect current operation of the System in connection with
Re-Route functionality, as described below.
Non-Displayed Routable Orders
    First, the Exchange proposes to add language to the Aggressive Re-
Route instruction that makes clear that any routable non-displayed
limit order posted to the BATS Book that is crossed by another
accessible Trading Center will be automatically routed to that Trading
Center. As described in Rule 11.9(g)(4), the Exchange re-prices non-
displayed orders to the extent they are crossed by another Trading
Center to avoid trading-through Protected Quotations displayed by such
Trading Center. In the process of such price sliding, to the extent a
non-displayed order is routable, the Exchange will attempt to route the
order to the Trading Center displaying the crossing quotation that
prompted the price sliding process.
    As an example of a routable non-displayed order that is handled
consistent with the Aggressive Re-Route instruction, assume the
Exchange receives a non-displayed order to buy 300 shares of a security
at $10.10 per share. Assume further that the NBBO is $10.09 by $10.10
when the order is received, and the Exchange's lowest priced offer is
priced at $10.11. The Exchange will route the order away from the
Exchange as a bid to buy 300 shares at $10.10. Assume that the order
obtains one 100 share execution through the routing process and then
returns to the Exchange. The Exchange will post the order as a non-
displayed bid to buy 200 shares at $10.10. If displayed liquidity then
appears at one or more Trading Centers priced at $10.09 or lower (i.e.,
crossing the posted bid to buy at $10.10), the Exchange will take the
non-displayed bid off of the BATS Book and again route such order to
the displayed liquidity at other Trading Centers.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to codify existing System
functionality by adding rule text to state that, consistent with the
Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction described in Rule 11.13(b)(4)(B),
when any order with a Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction is locked
by an incoming BATS Post Only Order or Partial Post Only at Limit Order
that does not remove liquidity pursuant to Rule 11.9(c)(6) or Rule
11.9(c)(7), respectively,\13\ the Re-Route order is converted to an
executable order and will remove liquidity against such incoming order.
The Exchange applies this logic in order to facilitate executions that
would otherwise not occur due to the instruction of a BATS Post Only
Order or Partial Post Only at Limit Order to not remove liquidity.
Because a Super Aggressive Re-Route eligible order is willing to route
to an away Trading Center and remove liquidity (i.e., pay a fee at such
Trading Center) when locked or crossed, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable and consistent with the instruction to force an execution
between an incoming BATS Post Only Order and an order that has been
posted to the BATS Book with the Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction.
The Exchange notes that the determination of whether an order should
execute on entry against resting interest, including against resting
orders with a Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction, is made prior to
determining whether the price of such an incoming order should be
adjusted pursuant to the Exchange's price sliding functionality
pursuant to Rule 11.9(g). The Exchange has limited the proposed
language to BATS Post Only Orders that

lock orders with a Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction because BATS
Post Only Orders that cross resting orders will always remove liquidity
because it is in their economic best interest to do so.\14\ Similarly,
Partial Post Only Limit Orders execute against crossing interest as set
forth in Rule 11.9(c)(7)(A). The Exchange also proposes to make clear
that although it will execute an order with a Super Aggressive Re-Route
instruction against a BATS Post Only Order that would lock it, if an
order that does not contain a Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction
maintains higher priority than one or more Super Aggressive Re-Route
eligible orders, the Super Aggressive Re-Route eligible order(s) with
lower priority will not be converted, as described above, and the
incoming BATS Post Only Order or Partial Post Only at Limit Order will
be posted or cancelled in accordance with Rule 11.9(c)(6) or Rule
11.9(c)(7), respectively. The Exchange believes it is necessary to
avoid applying the Re-Route functionality to Re-Route eligible orders
that are resting behind orders that are not Re-Route eligible orders to
avoid violating the Exchange's priority rule, Rule 11.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that pursuant to Rule 11.9(c)(6), BATS
Post Only Orders remove liquidity in certain circumstances based on
an economic analysis that takes into account applicable fees and
rebates. The Exchange has proposed clarifications to this economic
analysis as described above. Similarly, Partial Post Only at Limit
Orders are permitted to remove price improving liquidity as well as
a User-selected percentage of the remaining order at the limit price
if, following such removal, the order can post at its limit price.
See Rule 11.9(c)(7).
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example--Super Aggressive Re-Route and BATS Post Only Orders
    Assume that the Exchange receives an order to buy 300 shares of a
security at $10.10 per share designated with a Super Aggressive Re-
Route instruction. Assume further that the NBBO is $10.09 by $10.10
when the order is received, and the Exchange's lowest offer is priced
at $10.11. The Exchange will route the order away from the Exchange as
a bid to buy 300 shares at $10.10. Assume that the order obtains one
100 share execution through the routing process and then returns to the
Exchange. The Exchange will post the order as a bid to buy 200 shares
at $10.10. If the Exchange subsequently receives a BATS Post Only Order
to sell priced at $10.09 per share, such order will execute against the
posted order to buy with an execution price of $10.10. The posted buy
order will be treated as the liquidity provider and the incoming BATS
Post Only Order to sell will be treated as the liquidity remover, based
on the Exchange's rules that execute BATS Post Only Orders on entry if
such execution is in their economic interest.
    However, assuming the same facts as above, if the incoming BATS
Post Only Order to sell is priced at $10.10 and thus does not remove
liquidity pursuant to the economic best interest functionality, the
posted order with a Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction will execute
against such order at $10.10. In this scenario, the posted order to buy
will be treated as the liquidity remover and the incoming BATS Post
Only Order to sell will be treated as the liquidity provider.
    Finally, assume that the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.11 and that the
Exchange has a displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security at $10.10
and a displayed offer to sell 100 shares of a security at $10.11.
Assume that the displayed bid has not been designated with the Super
Aggressive Re-Route instruction. Assume next that the Exchange receives
a second displayable bid to buy 100 shares of the same security at
$10.10 that has been designated as routable and subject to the Super
Aggressive Re-Route instruction. Because there is no liquidity to which
the Exchange can route the order, the second order will post to the
BATS Book as a bid to buy at $10.10 behind the original displayed bid
to buy at $10.10. If the Exchange then received a BATS Post Only Order
to sell 100 shares at $10.10 then no execution would occur because the
incoming BATS Post Only Order cannot remove liquidity at $10.10 based
on the economic best interest analysis, the first order with priority
to buy at $10.10 was not designated with the Super Aggressive Re-Route
instruction and the second booked order to buy at $10.10 is not
permitted to bypass the first order as this would result in a violation
of the Exchange's priority rule, Rule 11.12.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
\15\ and further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \16\
because they are designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The proposed rule changes are also designed to support the
principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \17\ of the Act in that they seek to
assure fair competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modifications related to routable orders with a TIF of IOC,
Pegged Orders, Mid-Point Peg Orders, Discretionary Orders, and the
Exchange's priority, execution and routing rules are each designed to
add clarity and transparency regarding Exchange System functionality
without substantively modifying such functionality. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes will provide
additional clarity and specificity regarding the functionality of the
System and thus would promote just and equitable principles of trade
and remove impediments to a free and open market. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed amendments will contribute to the protection
of investors and the public interest by making the Exchange's rules
easier to understand.
    With respect to the additional specificity proposed in connection
with BATS Post Only Orders, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act in that the change will help to
clarify the methodology used by the Exchange to determine whether BATS
Post Only Orders will remove liquidity from the BATS Book. The Exchange
again notes that any methodology other than using the highest possible
rebate and highest possible fee could result in the Exchange
determining that an execution was in an entering User's economic best
interest when, in fact, it was not. For the reasons articulated above,
the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with and supports
just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to, and
helps to perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the
public interest.
    The Exchange also believes it is consistent with the Act to execute
Discretionary orders and orders with a Super Aggressive Re-Route
instruction against marketable liquidity (i.e., BATS Post Only Orders
and Partial Post Only Orders) when an execution would not otherwise
occur is consistent with both: (i) the Act, by facilitating executions,
removing impediments and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and national market system; and (ii) a User's instructions,
which have evidenced a willingness by the User to pay applicable
execution fees and/or execute at more aggressive prices than they are
currently ranked in favor of an execution. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed rule change provides additional specificity regarding
the functionality of the System with regard to routable non-displayed
orders that have been crossed by another accessible Trading Center,
thereby promoting just and equitable principles of trade and removing
impediments to a free and open market.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule changes are not designed to address any competitive issue but
rather to add specificity and clarity to Exchange rules, thus providing
greater transparency regarding the operation of the System.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule changes.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2015-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-09. 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 at 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090 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
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
BATS-2015-09, and should be submitted on or before March 11, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03222 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 95580]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. CP17-22-000]

Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on December 13, 2016, Kinder Morgan Louisiana
Pipeline, LLC (KMLP), 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, IL
60515, filed an application under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, requesting
authorization to (1) construct and operate the system modifications
necessary to enable KMLP to offer 600,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of
firm transportation service utilizing a north-to-south path on KMLP's
system; and (2) for permission and approval to abandon and remove
facilities at an existing meter station and the replacement thereof
with a larger meter station on the same site.
    The proposed facilities will provide for gas flow on a north-to-
south path on KMLP's system to deliver natural gas from existing
pipeline interconnects to the natural gas liquefaction and LNG export
facility currently being expanded and operated by Sabine Pass
Liquefaction, LLC (SPL) at Sabine Pass in Cameron Parish Louisiana, all
as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open for public inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll
free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to
Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline
Company, LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, IL 60515, or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 11, 2017.

     Dated: December 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31342 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10123-10124]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4574-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

New Jersey; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4574-DR), dated December 11, 2020,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued January 13, 2021.

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: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Jersey is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of December 11, 2020.

    Sussex County for Public Assistance.
    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.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-03307 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


September 11, 2015

Dr. Susan Ferenc, DVM, Ph.D.
Council of Producers & Distributors of Agrotechnology
1730 Rhode Island Ave., Suite 812
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Dr. Ferenc:

This is in response to your letter and follow-up meeting with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Council of Producers & Distributors of Agrotechnology's (CPDA) request to resolve labeling concerns with the revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200. Your letter was forwarded to the Directorate of Enforcement Programs for a response. You requested clarification on the December 1, 2015, effective date for container labeling of non-pesticide agrichemical products shipped from the manufacturer/importer or returned through the distribution system. Specifically, you state that compliance with the extended labeling deadline for distributors of agricultural chemical products is incompatible with market distribution and consumption practices, and is infeasible.
We appreciate your voicing concerns regarding the Hazard Communication standard on behalf of your members. The Agency is mindful of the complexity and scale of the changes required of manufacturers, importers and distributors during this transition period. After a summary of the background you provided, your paraphrased question and our reply are below.
Background: Non-pesticide agricultural chemicals (e.g., tank-mix adjuvants and plant nutritional products) are shipped from U.S. manufacturers and formulators to U.S. distributors and others. Under long-standing commercial arrangements, customers are permitted to return unused product to the distributor (not the manufacturer) sometimes 4-5 years after purchase. After confirming the integrity of the returned product, the distributor then may ship the returned product to other customers. The manner in which these products are distributed, returned to the distributor, and redistributed results in the products remaining in commerce for years and certainly beyond the December 1, 2015, effective date. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows agricultural chemicals regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to follow labeling requirements by the "released for shipment"[1] approach as triggered under the EPA's modified container and containment (C&C) rule. In addition, the CPDA is concerned about the increased workplace hazards and risks involved for workers that would dismantle pallets by hand, repackage, and re-label existing product containers.
Question: Will OSHA allow containers "leaving the workplace," which require labeling as per § 1910.1200(f)(1), to mean "released for shipment" as is used by the EPA's C&C rule?
Response: On February 9, 2015, OSHA had issued an interim enforcement memorandum which explained that in situations where a manufacturer or importer cannot comply with the June 1, 2015 effective date despite its reasonable diligence and good faith efforts, and a distributor is consequently unable to comply with the December 1, 2015 effective date, enforcement discretion would allow for limited continued use of HCS 1994-compliant MSDSs and labels provided that the distributor also exercised reasonable diligence and made good faith efforts to comply. Because of additional questions and requests for further clarification on the labels for existing stock, on May 29 2015, OSHA issued further interim guidance to address the limited continued use of HCS 1994-compliant labels.
The May 29th memorandum had stated, in part, distributors with existing stock that are packaged (e.g., boxed, palletized, shrink-wrapped, etc.) for shipment and are HCS 1994-compliant labeled before December 1, 2015, may continue to ship those containers downstream. In these instances, there is no requirement to re-label packaged for shipment containers with HCS 2012-compliant labels. Distributors must provide a HCS 2012-compliant label for each and every individual container shipped and the appropriate HCS 2012-compliant SDS(s) with any future shipments after December 1, 2015 or upon request, unless they can demonstrate reasonable diligence and good faith as discussed in the earlier February 9th memorandum. Additionally, distributors must provide HCS 2012-compliant SDSs to downstream users with the first shipment after a new or revised SDS is provided by the manufacturer or importer.
OSHA reviewed the EPA's "release for shipment" definition under their C&C rule and found that the February 9th and May 29th memoranda were closely aligned with it. Thank you for making us aware of the long-standing commercial arrangements for unused packages of agriculture chemicals to be returned to a distributor 4-5 years after purchase. However, the Agency believes that the Hazard Communication standard as currently designed, including the use of an HCS 2012-compliant label, is necessary for the long-term safety of downstream consumers.
OSHA has received a request to further clarify its HCS 2012 labeling requirements for manufacturers and importers in regards to the situations previously outlined in the February 9th and May 29th memoranda especially asking whether there is an end-date when all containers must be HCS 2012-compliant labeled. Consequently, OSHA now provides that, regardless of the date that a container was packaged for shipment, all containers shipped by the manufacturer or importer after June 1, 2017, and all containers in the control of a distributor after December 1, 2017, must be HCS 2012-compliant labeled prior to shipping.
As you are aware, on July 20, 2015, OSHA issued the revised Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012) directive, CPL 02-02-079 (copy enclosed). The revised directive incorporated the guidance from both the February 9, 2015 and May 29, 2015 enforcement memoranda. The revised HCS 2012 directive can be found at http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-02-079.pdf*.
In regards to the re-labeling of existing stock with HCS 2012-compliant labels where feasible, the employer should conduct a thorough hazard assessment, as required by 29 CFR 1910.132(d), to identify any potential hazard(s) (e.g., hand injury to workers from removing labels and relabeling), and then provide the type(s) of personal protective equipment that will protect workers from the hazard(s) identified (e.g., hand protection). The hazards associated with manual lifting can be lessened by developing and instituting an ergonomic lifting program. OSHA suggests that the CPDA reviews and shares with their members an ergonomic publication from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) titled Ergonomic Solutions for Retailers. The link to the document is http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-11-25-14.html. This NIOSH publication focuses on the grocery sector, but the easy-to-read format can be adapted to other scenarios including for those working in warehousing and storage facilities.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We appreciate CPDA's time to come in and meet with us to discuss the industry's concerns, and hope you find this information helpful. OSHA's requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our letters of interpretation do not create new or additional requirements but rather explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. From time to time, letters are affected when the Agency updates a standard, a legal decision impacts a standard, or changes in technology affect the interpretation. To assure that you are using the correct information and guidance, please consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Sincerely,

Thomas Galassi, Director
Directorate of Enforcement Programs


54 Exhibit 7 Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost 2005 2007 Number of Respondents 161,682 = 161,217 + 408 + 57 Existing PWSs New PWSs Primacy agencies Total Annual Responses 499,506 = 499,449 + 57 PWS responses Responses from primacy agencies Number of Responses per Respondent 3.09 = 499,506 / 161,682 Total annual responses from above Total respondents from above Total Respondent Hours 3,223,430 = 1,995,413 + 1,228,017 PWS hours Primacy agency hours Hours per Response 6.45 = 3,223,430 / 499,506 Total annual hours from above Total responses from above Annual O& M and Capital Cost12 $ 19,716k = $ 19,216k $ 500k Total PWS O& M costs Total primacy agency O& M costs Total Respondent Cost $ 116,457k = $ 73,120k + $ 43,337k For PWSs For primacy agencies Total Hours ( resp. plus Agency) 3,766,310 = 3,223,430 + 542,880 Total respondent hours Total EPA hours Total Cost ( resp. plus Agency) $ 141,092k = $ 116,457k $ 24,635k Total respondent cost Total EPA cost Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. PWSS Program ICR August 2004 55 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This section presents the change in burden and explains the reasons for the change in burden. The discussion is divided into four parts

Section 6( f)( i) summarizes the differences between the burden estimated in the 2001 PWSS Program ICR and the current OMB inventory for the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibit 9.

Section 6( f)( ii) summarizes adjustments to burden for incorporating ICRs that were previously stand alone ICRs into the PWSS Program ICR renewal. See Exhibit 10.

Section 6( f)( iii) summarizes adjustments to burden to account for changes in the definition of " public water system" introduced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments. See Exhibit 11.

Section 6( f)( iv) summarizes other adjustments to the burden estimates associated with rules that remain in the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibits 12 and 13.

Exhibit 8 summarizes how each of these changes has affected the overall burden inventory for the PWSS Program ICR.

Exhibit 8 Reasons for Change in Annual Burden ( Hours) ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Type of Change Change Running Total Comment Burden Estimated in the 2001 PWSS Program ICR 1,836,258 1,836,258 This is the burden estimated in the November 28, 2001, PWSS Program ICR.

Changes and Adjustments to the Inventory   see Section 6( f)( i) 785,590 2,621,848 This is the current OMB inventory. that reflects additional hours added for the Public Notification Rule Amendment to the 2001 PWSS ICR.

Incorporation of stand alone ICRs   see Section 6( f)( ii) 103,405 2,725,253 Burden after incorporating standalone ICRs ( Operator Certification Guidelines and Tribal Operator Certification).

Adjustments to account for the revised PWS definition   see Section 6( f)( iii) 51,671 2,776,924 Burden after accounting for activities required under the revised PWS definition.

Adjustments to rules carried forward from existing ICRs   see Section 6( f)( iv) 446,506 3,223,430 Burden for which EPA seeks approval in this ICR.

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding. PWSS Program ICR August 2004 56 6( f)( i) Burden Changes Approved by OMB The burden estimated in the 2001 PWSS Program ICR C and approved by OMB C was 1,836,258 hours. Since then, the actions summarized below have been made to the official OMB inventory. These changes are summarized in Exhibit 9; documentation of these changes is included in Appendix B.

June 28, 2002: OMB approved the Public Notification Amendment to the PWSS Program ICR. The 2000 Public Notification rule ICR expired in 2002. The amendment added 785,590 hours to the PWSS Program burden bringing the total burden to 2,621,848 hours.

Exhibit 9 Changes to the Burden Inventory for the PWSS Program ICR ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation N/ A 1,836,258 Opening Inventory from 2001 PWSS Program ICR Add 785,590 Public Notification burden Subtotal 2,621,848 Updated Inventory, as of 1/ 31/ 04 6( f)( ii) Incorporation of Stand alone ICRs into the PWSS Program ICR Two ICRs that are currently approved as stand alone ICRs   the Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Program and the Tribal Operator Certification Program   have been incorporated into this PWSS Program ICR. The current Operator Certification ICR annual burden is 96,837 hours for PWS activities and 3,971 hours for state activities for an annual total of 100,808 hours. The Tribal Operator Certification Program ICR includes only a total burden of 2,597 hours for PWS activities. The Tribal Operator Certification Program ICR does not expire until July 2006. Therefore burden for the Tribal Operator Certification Program is only added for the last year ( 2007) of this ICR. Exhibit 10 shows the affects of these changes on the 2001 PWSS Program ICR inventory. PWSS Program ICR August 2004 57 Exhibit 10 Incorporation of Stand Alone ICRs ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 2,621,848 OMB approved burden as of 1/ 31/ 04 Add 100,808 Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program ICR burden Add 2,597 Tribal Operator Certification Program burden Total 2,725,253 Inventory after approved amendments and incorporation of stand alone ICRs 6( f)( iii) Adjustments to Account for Changes in the Definition of a PWS In the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, Section 1401( 4) broadened the definition of " public water system" to include systems that provide water for human consumption and deliver the water via constructed conveyances. Prior to this change, PWSs included only piped water systems. This new definition affects the reporting and recordkeeping burdens for both PWSs and states. Burden adjustments associated with PWS activities result in a burden increase of 7,496 hours per year and those associated primacy agency activities result in an increase of 44,175 hours per year. Exhibit 11 shows the affects of these changes on the 2001 PWSS Program ICR inventory.

Exhibit 11 Adjustments for Changes in PWS Definition ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 2,725,253 Inventory after approved amendments and incorporation of stand alone ICRs Add 51,671 Burden associated with changes the PWS Definition Total 2,776,924 Inventory after approved amendments, incorporation of stand alone ICRs, adjustments for changes in the PWS definition PWSS Program ICR August 2004 58 6( f)( iv) Additional Program Adjustments The remaining changes in burden consist of program adjustments for activities that were carried forward from existing ICRs to this PWSS Program ICR renewal. Exhibits 12 and 13 summarize reasons for these changes and quantify the changes by activity. Burden adjustments associated with PWS activities resulted in a burden increase of 468,433 hours and are shown in Exhibit 12. Burden adjustments for primacy agencies resulted in a decrease of 21,927 hours per year, as shown in Exhibit 13. The large increase in PWS burden is discussed below.

Most of the increase in burden for PWSs ( 468,433 hours) is for the Public Notification Rule. The large increase in burden is caused by several factors. The first factor is that the PN amendment covered the period from July 2002 through December 2004, which is only two and a half years. The current ICR covers a full three year period from January 2005 through December 2007. The second factor leading to the large increase was the update to the violations data. The original amendment was based on 2000 SDWIS violations data, the current ICR was updated using 2002 SDWIS violations data. The total number of violations increased significantly between 2000 and 2002. Tier 3 violations, in particular, increased by approximately 30 percent between 2000 and 2002.

In general, many of the other PWS activities, as well as the primacy agency activities, decreased in burden because of a decrease in the total number of systems between 2000 and 2003. One exception was the CCR activities which increased. Although the total number of systems decreased, larger systems sizes increased and they require more hours than small systems to prepare reports. In addition some start up activities have been completed, particularly those associated with the Primacy Regulation, Operator Certification Program, and the Tribal Operator Certification Program. PWSS Program ICR August 2004 59 Exhibit 12 Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates Activity Previous Estimate ( Hours) 2004 Annual Burden Estimate ( Hours) Annual Change in Burden ( Hours) Reason for Change in Burden CCR 527,137 534,484 7,347 The change in burden results from a change in the number of systems for which the burden was calculated. The overall number of systems decreased slightly, but the number of larger systems increased. Because the larger systems require more times to prepare their reports, the overall effect was a net increase.

Primacy Regulations N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A V/ E 13,050 13,050 0 N/ A General State Primacy N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Capacity Development 136,723 132,328 ( 4,395) The change in burden results from a decrease in the number of systems for which the burden was calculated.

Public Notification 743,140 1,226,699 483,559 The PN amendment included burden for only a two and a half year period, while the current ICR covers a full three years. The number of violations was also updated from 2000 to 2002 data, for which a significant increase in Tier 3 violations occurred.

Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program 96,837 79,616 ( 17,221) Burden for obtaining a certified operator or applying for grandfather status drops out because these activities were completed in 2003. The total number of systems requiring operators also dropped.

Tribal Operator Certification Program 2,597 1,740 ( 857) The current ICR expires in 2006. Therefore only one year of burden ( 2007) is added to this ICR. Also, all the initial start up activities were completed by the end of 2004.

TOTAL 1,519,484 1,987,917 468,433 PWS change in burden after adjustments. PWSS Program ICR August 2004 60 Exhibit 13 Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICRs Activity Previous Burden Estimate ( Hours) 2004 Annual Burden Estimate ( Hours) Annual Change in Burden ( Hours) Reason for Change in Burden CCR 112,368 110,317 ( 2,051) The change in burden results from a decrease in the number of systems.

Primacy Regulations 116 0 ( 116) All activities for these regulations will be completed before this ICR period.

V/ E 109,080 109,080 0 N/ A General State Primacy 867,933 837,358 ( 30,575) The change in burden results from a decrease in the number of systems.

Capacity Development 69,851 66,894 ( 2,957) The change in burden results from a decrease in the number of systems.

Public Notification 42,450 57,001 14,551 The PN amendment included burden for only a two and a half year period, while the current ICR covers a full three years. The number of violations was also updated from 2000 to 2002 data, for which a significant increase in Tier 3 violations occurred.

Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program 3,971 3,192 ( 779) Burden for obtaining a certified operator or applying for grandfather status drops out because those activities were completed in 2003.

Tribal Operator Certification Program N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL 1,205,769 1,183,842 ( 21,927) Primacy agency change in burden after adjustments.

Exhibit 14 shows the effects of these adjustments on the bottom line burden. There is an annual burden of 2,776,924 hours after the incorporation of stand alone ICRs and program PWSS Program ICR August 2004 61 adjustments. Adding 468,433 hours to account for adjustment to the PWS burden and subtracting 21,927 hours to account for the adjustments to the primacy burden yields 3,223,430 hours. PWSS Program ICR August 2004 62 Exhibit 14 Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs ( Includes both PWS and Primacy Agency Burden)

Action Annual Burden Hours Brief Explanation None 2,776,924 Inventory after restructuring adjustments, incorporating stand alone ICRs , and adjustments for the change in the PWS definition ( see Exhibits 9 11)

Add 468,433 Adjustments for PWS activities carried forward from previous ICRs ( see Exhibit 12)

Subtract 21,927 Adjustment for primacy agency activities carried forward from previous ICRs ( see Exhibit 13)

Total 3,223,430 Equals hours requested in 2004 PWSS Program ICR. ( See Exhibit 7)

Note: Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting burden for collections included in this ICR is detailed in Exhibit 7 above. The annual respondent burden is estimated to average approximately 4.0 hours per respondent per year, for CWSs and 21,544.2 hours per respondent for primacy agencies. These estimates include time for gathering information as well as developing and maintaining records.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology, and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW 2004 0007, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the room is PWSS Program ICR August 2004 63 ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OW 2004 0007) and the OMB Control No. 2040 0090 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67754-67755]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3542-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Oregon; 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 Oregon (FEMA-3542-EM), dated September 10,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 10, 2020.

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 September 10, 2020, 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 Oregon resulting from wildfires beginning on
September 8, 2020, and continuing, are 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 Oregon.
    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 areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide emergency protective measures (Category B),
including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program in the designated areas.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
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, Dolph A.
Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Oregon have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Clackamas, Douglas, Jackson, Jefferson, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln,
Linn, Marion, Tillamook, and Washington Counties for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including 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.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-23595 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16781]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2009-0228]

Drawbridge Operating Regulations; Back Bay of Biloxi, Biloxi, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
I-110 bascule span bridge across the Back Bay of Biloxi, mile 3.0, in
Biloxi, Harrison County, Mississippi. This deviation provides for the
bridge to remain closed to navigation for two (2) two-hour periods
daily to facilitate the movement of vehicular traffic.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. on Friday, March 27,
2009 until 6 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0228 and are available online
at http: //www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration
Branch, Hale Boggs Federal Building, Room 1313, 500 Poydras Street, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Frank, Bridge Administration
Branch, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mississippi Department of Transportation
(MDOT) has requested a temporary deviation in order to improve the
traffic flow of vehicles over the I-110 bascule bridge across the Back
Bay of Biloxi, mile 3.0, in Biloxi, Harrison County, Mississippi. On
Friday, March 20, 2009, the Popps Ferry Bridge across the Back Bay of
Biloxi, mile 8.0 was damaged by a vessel allision, rendering the
drawbridge inoperable for an estimated period of six months. Vehicular
traffic that would normally transit across the Popps Ferry Bridge was
required to find alternate routes to cross the Back Bay of Biloxi. A
significant amount of these vehicles are now required to use the I-110
Bridge until the Popps Ferry Bridge is returned to service. MDOT, at
the request of the local government, has requested that the draw of the
I-110 bridge remain closed to navigation from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m.
and from 4 p.m. until 6 p.m. daily for a period of 180 days or until
the Popps Ferry Bridge is returned to service, whichever occurs first.
    Presently, as per 33 CFR 117.675(a), the draw of the I-110 bridge,
mile 3.0 at Biloxi shall open on signal if at least six hours notice is
given. The vertical clearance of the drawbridge in the closed-to-
navigation position is 60 feet above mean high water.
    Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, commercial
fishing vessels and recreational powerboats and sailboats. Due to the
amount of vertical clearance of the drawbridge in the closed-to-
navigation position, this deviation should have a minimal effect on
vessels transiting the waterway. No alternate route is available.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 27, 2009.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-8267 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 68266]
[DOCID:fr23de09-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM01-5-000]

Electronic Tariff Filings; Notice of Technical Conferences

December 16, 2009.
    In Order No. 714,\1\ the Commission adopted regulations requiring
tariff and tariff related filings to be made electronically starting
April 1, 2010. One of the required electronic tariff filing's data
elements is the Type of Filing Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, 73 FR 57,515 (Oct.
3, 2008), 124 FERC ] 61,270, FERC Stats. & Regs [Regulations
Preambles] ] 31,276 (2008) (Sept. 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that several technical conferences will be held to
address certain specific issues related to the Type of Filing Code.
Specifically, these meetings will address the tariff filing definitions
used for electronic filing and the attachments that are required, in
accordance with the Commission's regulations, for each tariff filing
type. The conferences will be held at the Commission's offices, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC. All interested persons are invited
to attend.
    The documents that will be discussed are located at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/etariff.asp. The dates, times, room numbers
and the regulatory sections to be discussed are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Regulatory section to
             Industry                         Date             Time and room location            discuss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas Act Pipelines........  Friday, January 22, 2010.  10 a.m. EDT Room 3M-3...  Part 154.
Natural Gas Policy Act and NGA     Friday, January 22, 2010.  After NGA pipelines--5    Sections 284.123 and
 Hinshaw Pipelines.                                            p.m., Room 3M-3.          .224.
Interstate Commerce Act Pipelines  Thursday, January 28,      10 a.m.-1:30 p.m. EDT,    Part 341.
                                    2010.                      Room 3M-3.
Federal Power Act Public           Tuesday, February 9, 2010  10 a.m.-1:30 p.m. EDT,    Part 35.
 Utilities.                                                    Room 3M-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Teleconferencing will be available. The number for teleconferencing
in these meetings will be posted on http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
etariff.asp and an RSS alert of the posting will be issued.
    The meetings are open to the public. No preregistration is
required.
    FERC meetings are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For more information about these conferences, please contact Keith
Pierce, Office of Energy Market Regulation at<PHONE_NUMBER> or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30456 Filed 12-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P