Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(vi)(A) \86\ requires that a CCA establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to determine the amount and regularly test the
sufficiency of the liquid resources held for purposes of meeting the
minimum liquid resource requirement by conducting stress testing of its
liquidity resources at least once each day using standard and
predetermined parameters and assumptions. Further, Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(viii) \87\ requires such policies and procedures to address
foreseeable liquidity shortfalls that would not be covered by the CCA's
liquid resources and seek to avoid unwinding, revoking, or delaying the
same-day settlement of payment obligations. Under the proposed LRMF and
changes to the Contingency Funding Plan, OCC would perform daily stress
tests using its Sufficiency Scenarios to assess potential liquidity
exposures in excess of OCC's Available Liquidity Resources under a
range of stress scenarios, including but not limited to, a 1987
historical market event and a 2008 historical market event, and if a
Clearing Member Group's exposures breach certain thresholds, OCC would
require the breaching Clearing Member Group to maintain cash deposits
in lieu of other forms of acceptable collateral to supplement OCC's
Available Liquidity Resources pursuant to the Contingency Funding Plan.
Accordingly, the Contingency Funding Plan enhancements also allow OCC
to address foreseeable liquidity shortfalls that would not be covered
by its currently available liquid resources. OCC therefore believes
that the proposed LRMF and changes to the Contingency Funding Plan are
reasonably designed to comply with the requirements of Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(vi)(A) and 17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii).\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(vi)(A).
    \87\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii).
    \88\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(vi)(A) and (e)(7)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Required Cash Deposits for Clearing Members on Watch Level
    OCC proposes to add new Rule 604(g) to provide OCC with authority
to require Clearing Members to deposit a specified amount of cash to
satisfy its margin requirements as a protective measure if a Clearing
Member is determined to present increased credit risk and is subject to
enhanced monitoring and surveillance under OCC's watch level reporting
process. Under the proposed rule, Clearing Members may be required to
satisfy such required cash deposits through their daily margin
requirements under Rule 601 or through intra-day margin calls under
Rule 609. The proposed rule change is designed to provide OCC with an
additional tool to mitigate potential liquidity risks of those Clearing
Members identified as presenting increased risk to OCC through its
ongoing monitoring processes outside of the forecasting process in the
Contingency Funding Plan. The proposed change would allow OCC to
collect additional liquid resources from a Clearing Member
demonstrating potentially increasing levels of risk through the watch
level review process so that OCC can continue the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities and assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for which
it is responsible in the event such Clearing Member defaults. The
proposed change is therefore designed to enhance OCC's resilience as a
systemically important financial market utility, which in turn would
promote the protection of investors and the public interest. As a
result, OCC believes the proposed change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) \90\ requires generally that a CCA
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor and
manage liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the CCA. OCC
believes that the proposed change is reasonably designed to comply with
the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) \91\ because it would provide
OCC with an additional tool to manage potential liquidity risks of
those Clearing Members identified as presenting increased risk to OCC
through its ongoing monitoring processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Enhancements to Rules Concerning the Borrowing of Clearing Fund
Assets
    OCC is proposing several changes to its rules to clarify its
authority to use Clearing Fund assets to address potential liquidity
needs. First, OCC proposes to amend Rules 1006(a) and (f) to clarify
that, where the Clearing Fund is already allowed to be used for
borrowings, OCC has authority to borrow cash directly instead of
pledging Clearing Fund cash or securities to a third party to borrow or
otherwise obtain funds. The proposed change would provide additional
clarity and transparency to OCC's Clearing Members regarding OCC's use
of Clearing Fund cash as a liquidity resource and would help Clearing
Members better understand their and OCC's rights and obligations as
they relate to the Clearing Fund.\92\ Second, OCC proposes to amend
Rule 1006(f) to permit OCC to reject a Clearing

Member's collateral substitution request concerning a security
contributed to the Clearing Fund where OCC has already used the
security to borrow or otherwise obtain funds. Explicitly providing this
discretion in OCC's Rules will strengthen OCC's access to liquidity
through secured borrowing arrangements by ensuring OCC is able to
preserve the pledge of particular securities where necessary or
appropriate. Finally, OCC proposes to amend Rule 1006(f) to clarify
that OCC is not required to wait thirty days prior to determining that
any borrowing represents an actual loss to the Clearing Fund. Making
this authority more explicit will help ensure that OCC is able to make
proportionate charges against Clearing Member contributions to the
Clearing Fund in a timely manner and make good the related losses. OCC
believes that these proposed changes provide important clarity around
its ability to borrow and use Clearing Fund assets for liquidity risk
management purposes, and to replenish such resources in a timely
fashion, thereby helping to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities and assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in its custody or control or for which it is
responsible in the event such Clearing Member defaults. The proposed
change is therefore designed to enhance OCC's resilience as a
systemically important financial market utility, which in turn would
promote the protection of investors and the public interest. As a
result, OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ OCC notes that the proposed changes to Rule 1006 are
aligned with OCC's existing Default Management Policy, which
provides that ``[i]n order to meet financial resource obligations as
a result of a clearing member suspension. OCC is able to utilize the
following resources . . . Clearing Fund deposits of the suspended
member. OCC may utilize any cash, convert Clearing Fund deposits to
cash, or effect borrowing or other transactions using such deposits.
Clearing Fund deposits of non-defaulting members. OCC may utilize
any cash, convert Clearing Fund deposits to cash, or effect
borrowing or other transactions using such deposits.'' (emphasis in
original). See supra note 50 and associated text.
    \93\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) \94\ requires generally that a CCA establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor and manage
liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the CCA. Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(ix) \95\ further requires such policies and procedures to
describe the CCA's process to replenish any liquid resources that the
clearing agency may employ during a stress event. OCC believes that
these proposed changes are reasonably designed to provide important
clarity around its ability to borrow and use Clearing Fund assets for
liquidity risk management purposes, and to replenish such resources in
a timely fashion, in a manner consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(7) and
(e)(7)(ix).\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \95\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ix).
    \96\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7) and (e)(7)(ix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Requirement for Clearing Members to Maintain Contingency Plans for
Settlement
    OCC proposes to amend Rule 301(d) to require that every Clearing
Member maintain adequate procedures, including but not limited to
contingency funding, to ensure that it is able to meet its obligations
arising in connection with clearing membership when such obligations
arise. The proposed rule change is intended to reduce liquidity risk at
OCC by requiring that Clearing Members have adequate contingency
planning designed to effect timely settlement of their obligations with
OCC despite a disruption by their primary settlement bank. OCC believes
that it is important that OCC and its members maintain processes that
are resilient to a variety of potential operational and financial
disruptions and that Clearing Members maintain robust contingency plans
designed to effect timely settlement of their obligations to reduce the
likelihood member would be unable to satisfy its settlement
obligations, risking possible suspension. As a result, OCC believes the
proposed rule change would promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities and assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in its custody or control or for which it is
responsible in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18) \98\ requires, in part, that a CCA establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to establish objective, risk-based, and publicly
disclosed criteria for participation, which permit fair and open access
by participants and, require participants to have sufficient financial
resources and robust operational capacity to meet obligations arising
from participation in the clearing agency. OCC believes the proposed
amendments to Rule 301(d) are objective and risk-based in that they
would apply to all Clearing Members and are intended to reduce the
likelihood that a Clearing Member would be unable to satisfy their
settlement obligations to OCC by requiring that Clearing Members have
adequate contingency plans for financial resources and robust
operational capacity to meet such obligations. The proposed requirement
would also be publicly disclosed in OCC's Rules. OCC therefore believes
the proposed change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18).\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(18).
    \99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Other Clarifying and Conforming Changes
    OCC proposes to make a number of other clarifying, conforming, and
organizational changes to the OCC Rules and Risk Policies to ensure the
accuracy and consistency of its liquidity risk management rules and
practices. The proposed changes are therefore designed to ensure that
OCC is able to effectively manage its liquidity risks and maintain
sufficient liquid resources to allow OCC to continue the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities and assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its custody or
control or for which it is responsible, notwithstanding a default of
the Clearing Member Group that would generate the largest aggregate
payment obligation for OCC in extreme but plausible market conditions.
As a result, OCC believes the proposed changes are consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \100\ and Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7) thereunder.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \101\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) \102\ require each
covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for
governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and specify
clear and direct lines of responsibility. As discussed above, OCC would
revise its Risk Policies to incorporate standardized policy exception
and violation reporting requirements, which would apply to all internal
OCC policies and procedures. The proposed change would simplify and
centralize the escalation path for policy document owners and ensure
that OCC's Compliance department, and if appropriate the Enterprise
Risk Management department, is notified in a consistent manner of any
exceptions or violations. OCC therefore believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
    \103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act \104\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. While aspects of

the proposal would have an impact on certain Clearing Members,
specifically in terms of the amount of cash Clearing Members must
deposit at OCC in connection with potential liquidity obligations, OCC
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The potential impact on Clearing Members, and the
appropriateness of those changes to further of the purposes of the Act,
is described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Liquidity Risk Management Framework
    OCC does not believe that the adoption of the LRMF would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed LRMF would
set forth the manner in which OCC effectively measures, monitors, and
manages its liquidity risks, including how OCC measures, monitors, and
manages its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely
basis, and its use of intraday liquidity. The LRMF is an internal OCC
document intended to comprehensively describe OCC's liquidity risk
management practices, many of which are current practices of OCC;
however, to the extent changes in any of OCC's current practices would
impact competition (e.g., changes in the Contingency Funding Plan),
those impacts are addressed below. OCC believes that the adoption of
the LRMF would not affect Clearing Members' access to OCC's services or
disadvantage or favor any particular user in relationship to another
user.
2. Liquidity Stress Testing
    The proposed liquidity stress testing approach is designed to allow
OCC to more appropriately measure, monitor, and manage its liquidity
exposures under a variety of foreseeable stress scenarios, including
the default of the Clearing Member Group that would generate the
largest aggregate payment obligation to OCC in extreme but plausible
market conditions. OCC would perform daily stress testing using
standard and predetermined parameters and assumptions. The proposed
approach to liquidity stress testing would rely on the stressed
scenarios and prices generated under OCC's current stress testing and
Clearing Fund methodology.\105\ The scenarios used are pre-identified
by OCC's the STWG and the output of these scenarios would be used for
liquidity resource evaluation and would be reviewed daily by FRM. The
stress tests in question consider a range of relevant stress scenarios
and possible price changes in liquidation periods, including but not
limited to: (1) Relevant peak historic price volatilities; (2) shifts
in other market factors including, as appropriate, price determinants
and yield curves; (3) the default of one or multiple members; (4)
forward-looking stress scenarios; and (5) reverse stress tests aimed at
identifying extreme default scenarios and extreme market conditions for
which the OCC's resources would be insufficient. OCC believes the
proposed approach to liquidity stress testing is designed to
appropriately measure and allow OCC to monitor and manage its liquidity
risk. It would also provide for new stress scenarios to be used by OCC
to call for additional liquid resources in the form of cash deposits
from those Clearing Members driving OCC's largest liquidity demands to
ensure that OCC continues to maintain sufficient liquid resources to
meet its settlement obligations with a high degree of confidence. While
the proposed rule change could result in OCC requiring an increased
amount of cash deposits from its Clearing Members, either in the form
of margin or Clearing Fund, OCC believes the proposed changes are
necessary for OCC to maintain compliance with its regulatory
obligations under the Exchange Act and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) thereunder,
as discussed in detail above. OCC therefore believes that any impact on
competition or OCC's Clearing Members would be necessary and
appropriate in furtherance of the protection of investors and the
public interest under the Act. In any event, OCC does not believe the
proposed rule change would affect Clearing Members' access to OCC's
services or disadvantage or favor any particular user in relationship
to another user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See supra notes 21 and 22 and associated text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Clearing Fund Cash Requirement
    OCC does not believe the proposed changes to the Clearing Fund Cash
Requirement would have any impact, or impose any burden, on
competition. The primary purpose of the proposed rule change is to
provide OCC with the flexibility to periodically set its Base Liquidity
Resources and to adjust Base Liquidity Resources in response to
changing market and business conditions to ensure that OCC maintains
sufficient liquidity resources to cover its liquidity risk exposures at
all times. The proposed rule change would apply to all Clearing Members
equally and any potential change in the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement
would continue to be allocated to Clearing Members based on their
proportionate share of the overall Clearing Fund size as determined by
Rule 1003(a)(y). OCC does not believe the proposed rule change would
affect Clearing Members' access to OCC's services or disadvantage or
favor any particular user in relationship to another user.
4. Two-Day Notice Period for Substitutions Involving Excess Clearing
Fund Cash
    OCC does not believe the proposed introduction of a two-day notice
period for any Clearing Member requesting to substitute Government
Securities for cash deposits in excess of such Clearing Member's
proportionate share of the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement would have
any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule
change is intended to provide additional certainty around the level of
liquidity resources available to OCC at any given time by fixing the
amount of cash in the Clearing Fund, and thereby fixing the amount of
OCC's Available Liquid Resources, for any given two-day liquidation
horizon. The proposed rule change would apply equally to all Clearing
Members. OCC notes that Clearing Members would continue to be able to
immediately withdraw cash deposits that are above their Clearing Fund
Cash Requirement provided that they have equivalent amount of excess
Clearing Fund deposits (as provided under Rule 1008). Moreover, OCC
notes that it would retain the discretion to waive the two-day
notification period if the substitution would not result in any
Clearing Member's settlement obligations exceeding the liquidity
resources available to satisfy such settlement obligations. OCC does
not believe the proposed rule change would affect Clearing Members'
access to OCC's services or disadvantage or favor any particular user
in relationship to another user.
5. Contingency Funding Plan
    OCC proposes to enhance its Contingency Funding Plan by using the
output of certain stress test scenarios (i.e., Sufficiency Scenarios)
in place of its current process for forecasting reasonably anticipated
settlement obligations to determine whether to require additional cash
deposits from its Clearing Members. While the use of stress scenarios
in the Contingency Funding Plan process could potentially result in a
wider or different subset of Clearing Members being subject to Required
Cash Deposits than those currently subject to calls under the current
Contingency Funding Plan, OCC does not believe the proposed rule change
would affect Clearing Members'

access to OCC's services or disadvantage or favor any particular user
in relationship to another user. The purpose of the proposed change is
to allow OCC to more appropriately monitor its liquidity exposures
under a variety of foreseeable stress scenarios, including the default
of the Clearing Member Group that would generate the largest aggregate
payment obligation to OCC in extreme but plausible market conditions,
and to call for additional liquid resources in the form of cash
deposits from those Clearing Members driving OCC's largest liquidity
demands to ensure that OCC continues to maintain compliance with its
regulatory obligations under the Exchange Act and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)
thereunder. OCC therefore believes that any impact on competition or
OCC's Clearing Members would be necessary and appropriate in
furtherance of the protection of investors and the public interest
under the Act.
6. Required Cash Deposits for Clearing Members on Watch Level
    OCC proposes to add new Rule 604(g) to provide OCC with authority
to require Clearing Members to deposit a specified amount of cash to
satisfy its margin requirements as a protective measure if a Clearing
Member is determined to present increased credit risk and is subject to
enhanced monitoring and surveillance under OCC's watch level reporting
process. OCC does not believe the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition. OCC notes that this rule would apply to all
Clearing Members equally and would only be applicable if a Clearing
Member was identified as presenting increased risk through OCC's watch
level reporting process. OCC does not believe the proposed rule change
would affect Clearing Members' access to OCC's services or disadvantage
or favor any particular user in relationship to another user. OCC
believes that, to the extent there would be any competitive impact, it
would not constitute a burden on competition, and would be necessary
and appropriate in furtherance of the protection of investors and the
public interest under the Act.
7. Enhancements to Rules Concerning the Borrowing of Clearing Fund
Assets
    OCC does not believe the proposed changes concerning its authority
to borrow and use Clearing Fund assets for liquidity risk management
purposes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
The proposed rule change is intended to provide further clarity around
OCC's existing authority to borrow Clearing Fund assets, and to
replenish its liquidity resources when necessary, and would apply
equally to all Clearing Fund contributions. OCC does not believe the
proposed rule change would affect Clearing Members' access to OCC's
services or disadvantage or favor any particular user in relationship
to another user.
8. Requirement for Clearing Members To Maintain Contingency Plans for
Settlement
    OCC does not believe the proposed rule change to require that every
Clearing Member maintain adequate procedures, including but not limited
to contingency funding, to ensure that it is able to meet its
obligations arising in connection with clearing membership, would have
any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule
change is intended to reduce liquidity risk at OCC by requiring that
Clearing Members have adequate contingency planning designed to effect
timely settlement of their obligations with OCC despite a disruption by
their primary settlement bank. These arrangements could include
maintaining ability to wire funds directly to OCC via Fedwire or by
providing instructions to another bank to effect the movement of funds.
OCC notes that this rule would apply equally to all Clearing Members.
Moreover, OCC does not believe the proposed rule change would affect
Clearing Members' access to OCC's services or disadvantage or favor any
particular user in relationship to another user.
9. Other Clarifying and Conforming Changes
    Finally, OCC proposes to make a number of other non-substantive
clarifying, conforming, and organizational changes to the OCC Rules and
Risk Policies in connection with the implementation of the proposed
change described herein. The proposed changes would not have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition and would not affect
Clearing Members' access to OCC's services or disadvantage or favor any
particular user in relationship to another user.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2020-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-003. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for

inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
website at https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-003 and
should be submitted on or before May 15, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08692 Filed 4-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6320-6321]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01917]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Regional
Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee and Board of Directors
Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) Regional Entity Trustee (RE), Regional
State Committee (RSC) and Board of Directors, as noted below. Their
attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
    All meetings will be held at the SPP Corporate Offices, 201 Worthen
Drive, Little Rock, AR 722111. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SPP RE
    January 28, 2013 (8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.)
SPP RSC
    January 28, 2013 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.)
SPP Board of Directors
    January 29, 2013 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. ER06-451, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1419, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-659, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-4105, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-140, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-550, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-891, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-909, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-959, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1017, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1018, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1179, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1401, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1402, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1586, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1772, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1779, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1849, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1974, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2292, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2366, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2387, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2505, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2507, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2525, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2562, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2648, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-2, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-47, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-51, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-60, Southwest Power Pool, Inc., et al.

Docket No. ER12-1813, The Empire District Electric Co.
Docket No. ER12-1071, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-59, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-548, ITC Great Plains, LLC
Docket No. ER12-1826, Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Docket No. ER12-1828, KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Co.
Docket No. ER11-3728, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-480, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1577, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. EL11-34, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER09-36, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC
Docket No. ER12-1537, Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
Docket No. ER12-1538, Southwestern Electric Power Co.
Docket No. ER12-1970, Southwestern Electric Power Co.
Docket No. ER09-35, Tallgrass Transmission, LLC
Docket No. EL12-28, Xcel Energy Services Inc., et al.
Docket No. EL13-15, Southwestern Public Service Company
Docket No. EL13-35, Southwestern Public Service Company
Docket No. ER13-301, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-366, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-367, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-459, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-476, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-498, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-528, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-551, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-565, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-566, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-567, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-601, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-664, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-725, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 17, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01917 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11563-11565]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1005; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-27-AD;
Amendment 39-17349; AD 2013-03-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp Turboshaft
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6C-67C turboshaft engines. This
AD requires initial and repetitive borescope inspections to verify the
presence of a retaining ring securing the power turbine (PT) baffle
located near the second stage PT disk. If the engine fails the
inspection, this AD also requires removing the engine from service
before further flight. This AD was prompted by five reported incidents
of second stage PT disk damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent
damage to the PT disk which, if undetected, could cause uncontained PT
disk failure and loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 26, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 26,
2013.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2012 (77
FR 65142). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
states:

    There have been 5 reported incidents of second stage Power
Turbine (PT) disk damage caused by the PT baffle moving and
contacting the downstream side of the second stage PT disk. In two
of these incidents, the PT section of the engine failed to rotate
(on ground) as a result of baffle interference.
    An investigation has determined that the root cause for the PT
baffle displacement and the resultant PT disk damage was due to the
failure of the retaining ring that holds the PT baffle in its
intended position.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 65142, October 25,
2012).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed (77 FR 65142,
October 25, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 220 engines of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
will take about six hours per engine to comply with this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. We anticipate that two engines
will fail the initial inspection. Required parts will cost about
$224,636 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
the AD on U.S. operators to be $561,472. Our cost estimate is exclusive
of possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2013-03-14 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp: Amendment 39-17349; Docket
No. FAA-2012-1005; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-27-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 26,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6C-67C
turboshaft engines that have not had P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) No.
PT6C-72-41056 incorporated.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by five reported incidents of second stage
power turbine (PT) disk damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent
damage to the PT disk which, if undetected, could cause uncontained
PT disk failure and loss of control of the helicopter.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.

(f) Borescope Inspections

    (1) Borescope-inspect to verify the presence of a retaining ring
securing the PT baffle located near the second stage PT disk, as
follows:
    (i) For engines with 2,200 PT cycles or more on the effective
date of this AD, inspect within 100 operating hours or 150 PT
cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) For engines with more than 1,400 PT cycles but fewer than
2,200 PT cycles on the effective date of this AD, inspect within 250
operating hours, 350 PT cycles, or before exceeding 2,350 PT cycles,
whichever occurs first.
    (iii) For engines with 1,400 PT cycles or fewer on the effective
date of this AD, inspect within 500 operating hours, 750 PT cycles,
or before exceeding 1,750 PT cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Thereafter, repetitively borescope-inspect to verify the
presence of the retaining ring securing the PT baffle located near
the second stage PT disk, on or before an additional 600 flight
hours or 900 PT cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (3) Use P&WC Alert SB No. PT6C-72-A41060, Revision 3, dated
October 11, 2012, paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(6) to do the
borescope inspections required by this AD.
    (4) If the retaining ring is missing or the PT baffle is out of
position, then remove the engine from service before further flight.

(g) Optional Terminating Action

    Performing the engine improvement modifications in P&WC SB No.
PT6C-72-41056, Revision 5, dated January 17, 2013, paragraphs 3.A.
through 3.C.(12) and 3.E.(1) through 3.E.(15), is an optional
terminating action to the repetitive inspections required by this
AD.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) If you performed the initial borescope inspection before the
effective date of this AD using P&WC Special Instruction No. 45-
2011R2, dated July 27, 2011, or P&WC Alert SB No. PT6C-72-A41060,
dated August 12, 2011, or Revision 1, dated September 29, 2011, or
Revision 2, dated February 10, 2012, you met the requirements of
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (2) If you performed the engine modification before the
effective date of this AD using P&WC SB No. PT6C-72-41056, dated
April 1, 2011, or Revision 1, dated June 17, 2011, or Revision 2,
dated October 6, 2011, or Revision 3, dated February 3, 2012, or
Revision 4, dated February 13, 2012, you met the requirements of
this AD and no further action is required.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact James Lawrence,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199.
    (2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2012-24, dated August 2,
2012, for related information.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp (P&WC) Alert Service Bulletin
(SB) No. PT6C-72-A41060, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2012.
    (ii) P&WC SB No. PT6C-72-41056, Revision 5, dated January 17,
2013.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada, J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site:
http://www.pwc.ca.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 1, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-03266 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75999-76000]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13734-000; Project No. 13754-000; Project No. 13765-000;
Project No. 13783-000; Project No. 13790-000]

Lock + Hydro Friends Fund XlVI; FFP Missouri 17, LLC; Solia 3
Hydroelectric, LLC; Three Rivers Hydro, LLC; Hildebrand Hydro, LLC;
Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, and Motions To Intervene

NOVEMBER 30, 2010.
    On May 18, 2010, Lock + Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, FFP Missouri 17,
LLC, Solia 3 Hydro, LLC, and Three Rivers Hydro LLC, and on May 19
Hildebrand Hydro, filed applications, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower at
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Hildebrand Lock & Dam located
on the Monongahela River in Monongahela County, West Virginia. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    Descriptions of the proposed Hildebrand Lock & Dam Projects:
    Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI's project (Project No. 13734-000)
would consist of: (1) Two 69-foot-high, 75-foot-long prefabricated
concrete walls attached to the downstream side of the Corps dam which
would support one frame module; (2) each frame module would be 109 feet
long and weigh 1.16 million pounds and contain 10 generating units with
a total combined capacity of 20.0 megawatts (MW); (3) a new switchyard
containing a transformer; and (4) a proposed 1,000-foot-long, 69-
kilovolt (kV) transmission line connecting to an existing substation.
The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 87.660
gigawatt-hours (GWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark R. Stover, Hydro Green Energy LLC, 5090
Richmond Avenue 390, Houston, TX 77056; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
x711.
    FFP Missouri 17, LLC's project (Project No. 13754-000) would
consist of: (1) An excavated intake channel slightly longer and wider
than the powerhouse; (2) a 60-foot-long, 110-foot-wide, 40-foot-high
proposed powerhouse containing two generating units having a total
installed capacity of 10.0 MW; (3) an excavated tailrace channel
slightly longer and wider than the powerhouse; and (4) a proposed
1,600-foot-long, ranging from 34.0 to 230-kV transmission line. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 40.0 GWh,
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978)
283-2822.
    Solia 3 Hydroelectric, LLC's project (Project No. 13765-000) would
consist of: (1) A proposed 300-foot-long excavated power canal; (2) a
60-foot-long, 110-foot-wide, 40-foot-high proposed powerhouse
containing two generating units having a total installed capacity of
10.0 MW; (3) a 200-foot-long excavated tailrace; and (4) a proposed
1,600-foot-long, ranging from 34.0 to 230-kV, transmission line. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 40.0 GWh,
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Douglas Spaulding, P.E., Nelson Energy, 8441
Wayzata Blvd., Suite 101, Golden Valley, MN 55426; phone (952) 544-
8133.
    Three Rivers Hydro, LLC's project (Project No. 13783-000) would
consist of: (1) a proposed 75-foot-long excavated power canal; (2) a
45-foot-long, 110-foot-wide, 40-foot-high proposed powerhouse
containing two generating units having a total installed capacity of
4.5 MW; (3) a 55-foot-long excavated tailrace; and (4) a proposed
1,600-foot-long, 138-kV transmission line. The proposed project would
have an average annual generation of 24.0 GWh, which would be sold to a
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Joseph Watt, Esq., Three Rivers Hydro, LLC,
316 South Clinton Street, Suite 4, Syracuse, NY 13202; phone (315) 477-
9914.
    Hildebrand Hydro LLC's project (Project No. 13790-000) would
consist of: (1) A proposed 70-foot-long excavated power canal; (2) a
proposed powerhouse containing one generating unit having a total
installed capacity of 4.3 MW; (3) a 70-foot-long excavated tailrace;
and (4) a proposed 0.2-mile-long, 69.0-kV transmission line. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 13.6 GWh,
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent Smith, Symbiotics, LLC., P.O. Box 535,
Rigby, ID 83442; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tim Looney<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your

name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13734-000, 13754-000, 13765-000, 13783-000
or 13790-000) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30599 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28627]
[DOCID:fr21my10-95]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1884-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

California 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 California (FEMA-1884-DR), dated March 8, 2010, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Sandy Coachman,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Michael H. Smith as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-12198 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Appendix 2 Telephone survey form for end of pilot survey  Note: After mid year review is completed, minor revisions to the format and insignificant changes to wording may occur based on experiences with mid year. No new questions will be added. July 2004 GATEKEEPER INTRODUCTION: May I please speak with ( PRINTER).

IF NECESSARY: This is ____________ calling from Abt Associates about an environmental program that ( PRINTER) is participating in.

PRINTSTEP PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTION Hello, This is __________ calling from Abt Associates about the PrintSTEP program. You may remember participating printers are being asked to complete a brief interview at the close of the pilot project. [ You may recall that we spoke with you a year ago about your participation with the PrintSTEP program]. We are doing this follow up interview to learn more about your latest experiences with PrintSTEP. The data collected during these interviews will be kept confidential and not reported in any way that would allow you to be individually identified.

Your participation in this interview is voluntary and will have no effect on your involvement in PrintSTEP or any other government program. This research is sponsored by the U. S Environmental Protection Agency. 1. Have you been involved in any type of outreach or public involvement activity since your PrintSTEP application was approved?

YES NO  SKIP TO Q2 a. What type of community outreach were you involved with? [ Note: During the mid year review, if a facility described a type of outreach different than one listed below, then one of the other non relevant outreach activities listed below may be deleted and replaced by the one in which the printer participated. The number of items on the list will not change.] An open house A public meeting Hearings of conservation commission Hearings of health board City council meetings Written materials Some other type of community outreach b. In general, how useful do you think these community outreach efforts were?

Very useful Somewhat useful Not very useful, or Not useful at all 2. Was a Community Involvement Plan developed since date ( date of W2 questioning  we want to make sure we're not gathering information on the same CIP as in W2).

YES NO  SKIP TO Q3 a. In general, how useful did you find the Community Involvement Plan? Would you say it was

Very useful Somewhat useful Not very useful, or  SKIP TO C Not useful at all  SKIP TO C b. In what ways was it useful to you?

RESOLVED ISSUES ADDRESSED CONCERNS IDENTIFIED SUPPORT OTHER ( SPECIFY)

c. How could it have been more useful? 3. Before you held your public meeting, did you provide public notice of the meeting?

YES NO  SKIP TO 4 a. In providing public notice, did you use.

Direct mailing Telephone contact Newspaper notice or advertisement Posted signs Internet notice In person or word of mouth Any other type of notice ( SPECIFY)

4. How useful was the ( first/ follow up) public meeting as a way to learn about community concerns and expectations? Would you say it was

Very useful Somewhat useful Not very useful, or Not useful at all 5. What would have made the ( first/ follow up) public meeting more useful? ( MULTIPLE RESPONSES)

GREATER COMMUNITY ATTENDANCE PARTICIPATION OF STATE AGENCY STAFF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN DEVELOPED OTHER ( SPECIFY)

IF THERE WAS A FOLLOW UP PUBLIC MEETING ( 1a), ASK QUESTIONS 3 5 FOR THE SECOND MEETING.

6. Did you receive written comments on your PrintSTEP application?

YES NO  SKIP TO Q7 a. How useful did you find the public comment process at addressing concerns? Would you say it was..

Very useful Somewhat useful Not very useful, or Not useful at all 7. Did you use the PrintSTEP Information Repository during any part of the regulatory process? YES NO  SKIP TO Q7c a. How satisfied were you with the information available in the Information Repository? Were you

Very satisfied  SKIP TO 8 Somewhat satisfied  SKIP TO 8 Somewhat unsatisfied, or Very unsatisfied b. Why weren't you satisfied with the information available in the Information Repository ?

NOT ENOUGH USEFUL INFORMATION THERE DIDN'T HAVE TIME / TOO BUSY OTHER ( SPECIFY)

c. Why not?

DIFFICULT TO ACCESS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT 8. Did you contact the PrintSTEP coordinator for information during your PrintSTEP application or implementation process? ( Note: Will use the name of the actual coordinator for each state.) YES NO  SKIP TO Q8c a. How satisfied were you with the information obtained from ( name of state contact person and office/ office) Were you .

Very satisfied  SKIP TO Q9 Somewhat satisfied  SKIP TO Q9 Somewhat unsatisfied, or Very unsatisfied b. Why weren't you satisfied with this information?

Not knowledgeable Passed me to someone else Didn't have time to help me Other c. Why not?

DIDN'T KNOW WHO TO CALL COULDN'T REACH THEM DIDN'T NEED HELP DIDN'T HAVE TIME/ TOO BUSY OTHER 9. Since the time when your PrintSTEP application was approved, have you obtained information from ( technical assistance provider/ center name)?

YES NO  SKIP TO Q9c a. How satisfied were you with the assistance obtained from ( technical assistance provider/ center name)? Were you..

Very satisfied  SKIP TO Q10 Somewhat satisfied  SKIP TO Q10 Somewhat unsatisfied, or Very unsatisfied b. Why weren't you satisfied with the assistance from ( Technical assistance provider/ name)?

Not knowledgeable Passed me to someone else Didn't have time to help me Other c. Why not?

DIFFICULT TO ACCESS NOT ENOUGH USEFUL INFORMATION THERE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT DIDN'T HAVE TIME/ TOO BUSY OTHER ( SPECIFY)

10. Since the time when your PrintSTEP application was approved, have you obtained environmental regulatory information from any other source?

YES NO  SKIP TO Q11 a. What other source was this?

b. How satisfied were you with the information obtained from ( name of other source)? Would you say you were .

Very satisfied  SKIP TO Q11 Somewhat satisfied  SKIP TO Q11 Somewhat unsatisfied, or Very unsatisfied c. Why weren't you satisfied with the information obtained from ( name of other source)

NOT ENOUGH USEFUL INFORMATION THERE DIDN'T HAVE TIME/ TOO BUSY OTHER ( SPECIFY)

11. Since the time when your PrintSTEP application was approved, have you used the PrintSTEP Workbook or other PrintSTEP documents?

YES NO  SKIP TO Q11c a. How satisfied were you with the content and format? Would you say you were .

Very satisfied  SKIP TO Q12 Somewhat satisfied  SKIP TO Q12 Somewhat unsatisfied, or Very unsatisfied b. Why weren't you satisfied with the PrintSTEP documents?

Difficult to follow/ understand DIDN'T HAVE TIME/ TOO BUSY WEREN'T WRITTEN IN YOUR PRIMARY LANGUAGE OTHER ( SPECIFY)

c. Why not?

DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE ANY DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION I NEEDED COULDN'T GET A COPY 12. I'm going to read of list of possible outcomes of the PrintSTEP public involvement activities. For each one, please tell me if it was an outcome of your own involvement. Was ( ITEM) an outcome? ( YES or NO) ( If you have not had any public involvement activities, skip to Q13.)

° New information was introduced about the environmental impacts of your facility ° Different approaches were developed to address environmental problems ° The schedule for printers' PrintSTEP Agreements was lengthened or shortened compared to the time it used to take under the standard permitting process ° Different requirements or environmental limits were set in the agreements ° The final Agreement was different from what it would have been without public involvement ° ASK IF NO " YES" RESPONSE ABOVE:  No outcomes were affected 1. What effect does multi media or multi program coordination a the state agency have on the regulatory process? Does it usually.... Speed up the process Slow down the process Sometimes speed it up and other times slow it down Have no effect at all 2. We would like to get a sense of printers' perception of your environmental regulatory requirements. For each area that I read, please tell me whether you would rate your own understanding as very good, good, fair or poor. How would you rate your understanding of the ( READ ITEM)? VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR Air regulatory program and associated requirements 4 3 2 1 Storm Water regulatory program and associated requirements 4 3 2 1 Waste Water regulatory program and associated requirements 4 3 2 1 Hazardous Waste regulatory program and associated requirements 4 3 2 1 3. FOR EACH ITEM RESPONDENT ANSWERED NOT VERY GOOD OR POOR IN Q9 ABOVE, ASK: ° What about the ( air/ storm water/ waste water/ hazardous waste) regulatory program or requirements do you find difficult to understand?

TOO COMPLICATED LACK OF EASY TO READ INFORMATION NO TIME TO LEARN HARD TO GET INFORMATION FROM GOVERNMENT STAFF OTHER ( SPECIFY)

5. Has an environmental requirement, for example, an approval from the local, state, or federal government, affected your company's ability to respond to a business opportunity during the course of PrintSTEP? For example, installing a new piece of equipment; meeting the request of a customer or potential customer for a different ink, coating, etc.; increasing production; or bringing out sourced operations in house?

YES NO  SKIP TO Q17 Don't know Refused a. Can you describe a recent time this happened?

b. How big an impact did this have on your company's profitability or growth opportunity? Would you say it was  i. A severe negative impact ii. A serious negative impact iii. A moderate negative impact or iv. A slight negative impact 1. Since PrintSTEP, has the time you've spent on record keeping related to environmental requirements increased, decreased, or remained the same, ignoring changes related to variations in your production volume? INCREASED DECREASED REMAINED THE SAME 2. Since PrintSTEP, has the time you've spent on reporting related to environmental requirements increased, decreased, or remained the same, ignoring changes related to variations in your production volume? INCREASED DECREASED REMAINED THE SAME 3. Do you see any benefits from your involvement in PrintSTEP? YES NO  SKIP TO Q20 c. What benefits do you see from your involvement in the process?

1. Were there any drawbacks to being involved? YES NO  SKIP TO Q21 d. What were the drawbacks? 1. What recommendations do you have for program improvements?

2. Overall, how satisfied are you with the PrintSTEP process? Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat unsatisfied, or Very unsatisfied.

CLOSING: Those are all my questions. Thank you very much for your time.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58439-58440]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA 2012-0006-N-12]

Environmental Impact Statement for the Northeast Corridor Between
Washington, DC, New York, NY and Boston, MA

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This
document describes the collection of information for which FRA intends
to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than November 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
[Docket No. FRA 2012-0006-N-12] on-line at http://www.regulations.gov
(follow the online instructions for submitting comments), by mail to
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, by hand
delivery to West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Washington, DC (between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays), or by facsimile to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the Docket number
for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Reyes-Alicea, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad
Policy & Development, Mail Stop 20, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44
U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320,
require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public for
comment on information collection activities before seeking approval
for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites
interested respondents to comment on the following summary of proposed
information collection activities regarding (i) whether the information
collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its
functions, including whether the activities will have practical
utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the
information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (iii) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of
information collection activities on the public by automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)(I)-(iv); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1)(I)-(iv).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its
efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated
with this collection of information. Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including
your address, phone number, email address, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, please be aware that your
entire comment, including your

personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any
time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold personal
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received
will advance three objectives: (i) Reduce reporting burdens; (ii)
ensure that it organizes information collection requirements in a
``user friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(iii) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    Below is a brief summary of the information collection activities
that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
    Title: Survey of Northeast Regional and Intercity Household Travel
Attitudes and Behavior.
    Type of Request: New information collection requirement.
    Status: Regular review.
    OMB Clearance Number: None.
    Form Number: F222.
    Respondent Obligation: Voluntary.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Affected Public: Members of the general public between the ages of
18 and 74 who have Northeast intercity or regional travel experience
during the 12 months prior to interview.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: up to 22,500 for phase 1; up to
15,000 for phase 2.
    Abstract: FRA proposes to collect information from the public to
determine current intercity and regional travel behavior of Northeast
residents. The information collected will include frequency of trips,
origin and destination, modes of travel (and class of service if
applicable), trip purpose, party size, trip costs, and other trip
characteristics. It will also ask for travel preferences under
alternative choice scenarios that include different and new modes,
classes of service, costs, and amenities.
    The proposed information collection will be conducted in two
phases. The first phase (Phase 1 Survey) will be conducted by
telephone, using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). A
dual frame sample design will be used including both landlines and cell
phones. The Phase 1 Survey will obtain basic travel information and
invite just those who experienced a qualifying intercity or regional
travel trip to provide more detailed travel information and choice
preferences in a second phase. The Phase 1 Survey interview is
estimated to take five (5) minutes to complete. The second phase (Phase
2 Survey), which will immediately follow the first, will be
administered by web (except in cases when easy web access is not
possible and the participant needs a mailed paper survey). The Phase 2
Survey will ask more detailed questions about one randomly selected
trip that the respondent reported in the first phase of the survey. In
addition, it will ask the travel preference questions. The Phase 2
Survey is estimated to take 15 minutes to complete.
    The Northeast faces major congestion and capacity constraints that,
if not addressed, will have the potential to curtail future mobility
and economic growth in the region. Thus, FRA established the Northeast
Corridor (NEC) Future Program to develop a Passenger Rail Corridor
Investment Plan (PRCIP) for the Northeast region. The PRCIP will
address the larger goals of improving mobility, effectively serving
travel demand, supporting economic development, reducing growth in
carbon emissions and dependence of foreign oil, and contributing to
improved land utilization. The PRCIP requires the development and
evaluation of improved transportation alternatives for the Northeast.
In support of preparing the PRCIP, this data collection is needed to
build a model for estimating market demand for transportation in the
Northeast and to evaluate how travelers would respond to alternative
transportation service options.
    While there are certain publicly available data that can assist in
analyzing the Northeast travel market during the early phases of the
project when alternatives are evaluated using coarse screening tools,
more detailed data will be needed to support development of the
detailed PRCIP. Currently available data include airline ticket data,
Amtrak ticket data, and commuter rail ticket data. But these data
sources do not contain information on the characteristics of the
traveler (such as age, income, or vehicle ownership), trip purpose,
detail on party size, or actual origins and destinations. Importantly,
there is no current information on the number of intercity trips taken
by automobile in the Northeast. Further, there is not currently a
sufficient information source for traveler preferences regarding new
transportation services that might be developed as part of the PRCIP.
    Reporting Burden: The target sample size for the Phase 2 Survey is
up to 15,000 responses. To achieve this target sample size, we estimate
needing to contact up to 22,500 households in the Phase 1 Survey. This
larger number for Phase 1 respondents accounts for the fact that (i)
not all households will have taken a qualifying trip during the
previous 12 months and (ii) not all respondents will want to
participate. All interviewing will occur during a two to three month
phase in winter/spring 2012-2013.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Phase                                   Minutes       Respondents    Burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1.........................................................               5          22,500           1,875
Phase 2.........................................................              15          15,000           3,750
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................  ..............  ..............           5,625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Estimated Responses: 37,500.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 5,625 hours.
    Status: Regular Review.
    Requested Expiration: 3 years from date of approval.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 14, 2012.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-23232 Filed 9-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 44385]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2399-000]

Phobos Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Phobos Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 9, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 20, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15991 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81203-81206]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27591]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79281; File No. SR-BX-2016-059]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4702
and Rule 4703 To Add a ``Trade Now'' Instruction to Certain Order Types

November 10, 2016.
    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 November 8, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 proposes to amend Rule 4702 (Order Types) and Rule
4703 (Order Attributes) to add a ``Trade Now'' instruction to certain
order types.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    BX proposes to amend Rules [sic] 4702 (Order Types) and Rule 4703
(Order Attributes) to add a ``Trade Now'' instruction to certain order
types. BX will offer this functionality through its OUCH, RASH, FLITE,
and FIX protocols. This instruction will provide resting orders with a
greater ability to receive an execution when that resting order is
locked, e.g., the price of a resting non-display buy order equals the
price of a resting displayed sell order on the BX book. The Trade Now
instruction will allow participants to enter an instruction to have a
locked resting buy (sell) order execute against the locking sell (buy)
order. Depending on the protocol used by the participant to access the
BX system, the participant may either specify that the order execute
against locking interest automatically, or the participant may be
required to send a Trade Now instruction to the Exchange once the order
has become locked. As discussed in greater detail below, BX is offering
the Trade Now instruction for all orders that may be sent to the BX
book and that are not subject to other BX rules regarding the display
and execution of those orders.
    When a Trade Now instruction is applied to a resting buy (sell)
order, the order will execute against the available size of the locking
sell (buy) order at the locked price. The following example illustrates
this scenario:
     Participant A enters a Non-Display buy order for 200
shares at $0.95, and specifies the Trade Now instruction;
     Participant B enters a Post Only sell order for 100 shares
at $0.95; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange recently submitted a proposal to amend BX Rules
4702 and 4703 to change the way in which Post Only Orders interact
with resting Non-Display orders and preventing the execution of
midpoint pegged orders during a crossed market. See Securities
Exchange Act 78909 (September 22, 2016), 81 FR 66708 (September 28,
2016) (SR-BX-2016-046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Post Only order is posted at $0.95 and locks the Non-
Display order;
     The buy order will execute for 100 shares at $0.95 as the
remover of liquidity.
    If a buy (sell) order with the Trade Now instruction is only
partially executed, the unexecuted portion of that order remains on the
BX book and maintains its priority. When a Trade Now instruction is
entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocol for a resting buy (sell)
order and there is no locking order on the opposite side of the market,
the Trade Now instruction will be ignored and the buy (sell) order will
remain on the BX book, retaining its priority.
    As noted above, BX is proposing to offer the Trade Now instruction
for all orders that may be sent to the BX book and that are not subject
to other BX rules regarding the display and execution of those orders.
Accordingly, the Trade Now instruction shall not be available for
Retail Price Improving Orders (Rule 4702(b)(5)) or Retail Orders (Rule
4702(b)(6)). A Retail Price Improving Order is held on the Exchange
Book in order to provide liquidity at a price at least $0.001 better
than the NBBO, and may execute only against a Retail Order, and only if
its price is at least $0.001 better than the NBBO. A Retail Order will
attempt to execute against Retail Price Improving Orders and any other
orders on the Exchange Book with a price that is (i) equal to or better
than the price of the Retail Order and (ii) at least $0.001 better than
the NBBO. Given that Retail Price Improving Orders and Retail Orders
are already subject to rules governing the handling and execution of
such orders, there is not a need to implement the Trade Now instruction
for these order types.
    Depending on the interface being used by the participant, the Trade
Now attribute may either allow the order to execute against locking
interest automatically (``Reactive Trade Now''), or the participant may
be required to send a Trade Now instruction to the Exchange once the
order has become locked (``Non-Reactive Trade Now''). All orders that
are entered through the RASH and FIX protocols with a Trade Now order
attribute will be Reactive Trade Now, and those orders shall execute
against locking interest automatically.
    The Reactive Trade Now instruction will be available on an order-
by-order basis, and will also be available as an optional port level
setting. If the Reactive Trade Now setting is enabled on a specific
port, all orders entered via the specific port will, by default, be
designated with the Reactive Trade Now instruction. If the Reactive
Trade Now setting is enabled on a specific port, participants will have
the ability to designate on an order-by-order basis that a particular
order entered via the specific port will not be designated with the
Reactive Trade Now instruction, thereby overriding the port level
setting for the order. If the Reactive Trade Now instruction is
specified for an order for which the Trade Now instruction does not
apply, e.g., a Retail Price Improving Order or a Retail Order, the
system will not invoke the Trade Now instruction for that order.
    In contrast, orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols
will use the Non-Reactive Trade Now functionality, and participants
must send the Trade Now instruction after the order becomes locked. If
a participant enters a Non-Reactive Trade Now instruction when there is
no locking interest, the instruction will be ignored by the system and
the order will remain on the BX Book with the same priority.
    The Non-Reactive Trade Now instruction will be available to
participants on order-by-order basis. If the Non-Reactive Trade Now
instruction is entered for an order for which the Trade Now instruction
does not apply, the system will not invoke the Trade Now instruction
for that order.
    BX is offering two different variations of the Trade Now
instruction to reflect the differences in behavior among participants
who use the different BX protocols. For example, BX typically assumes a
more active role in managing the order flow submitted by users of the
RASH and FIX protocols. Allowing these participants to use the Reactive
Trade Now instruction at the time of order entry will allow for the
automatic execution of orders, and reflects the order flow management
practices of these participants. In contrast, users of the OUCH and
FLITE protocols generally assume a more active role in managing their
order flow. Offering the Non-Reactive Trade Now instruction for these
protocols, and its requirement that the instruction must be sent after
the order becomes locked, reflects the order flow management practices
of these participants.
    BX notes that a similar functionality currently exists on NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), which NYSE Arca refers to as a ``Non-
Display Remove Modifier.'' As set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 7.31, a Limit
Non-Displayed Order may be

designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier. If so designated, a
Limit Non-Displayed Order to buy (sell) will trade as the liquidity-
taking order with an incoming Adding Liquidity Only Order (``ALO
Order'') to sell (buy) that has a working price equal to the working
price of the Limit Non-Displayed Order.\4\ NYSE Arca also provides this
functionality for other orders, such as Mid-Point Passive Liquidity
Orders (``MPL Orders'') designated Day and MPL-ALO Orders \5\ and Arca
Only Orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(d)(2)(B).
    \5\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(d)(3)(G).
    \6\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(e)(1)(C). To the extent that the
Trade-Now functionality will be made available for Price to Comply
Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, Post-Only
Orders, and Market Maker Peg Orders, BX notes that the Trade-Now
functionality will apply to different order types than the NYSE Arca
Non-Display Remove Modifier functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is 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, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by offering participants an additional functionality that will
facilitate the execution of locked orders, thereby increasing the
efficient functioning of the BX market. The Trade Now functionality is
an optional feature that is being offered at no additional charge, and
is designed to reflect both the objectives of the BX market, and the
order flow management practices of various market participants. For
these reasons, the Trade Now functionality will only be made available
for orders that are entered in the BX book and that are not subject to
other BX rules regarding the display and execution of those orders,
i.e., Retail Price Improving Orders and Retail Orders. Depending on the
protocol, the Trade Now functionality will be offered as either the
Reactive Trade Now or Non-Reactive Trade Now functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This is an optional
functionality that is being offered at no charge, and which may be used
equally by similarly-situated participants. Although the functionality
of the Trade Now instruction will differ depending upon the protocol
that is being used to access BX, BX believes that the difference in
functionality reflects the different ways in which participants enter
and manage their order flow.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that the Trade Now functionality is complementary to its recent
proposal to change the way in which Post Only Orders interact with
resting Non-Display orders.\12\ The Exchange believes that releasing
both complementary functionalities at the same time will be easier for
market participants to manage and implement. The Exchange further
believes that the Trade Now functionality will facilitate the execution
of locked orders, thereby increasing the efficient functioning of the
BX market, and that waiver of the operative delay will allow this
functionality to be made available at an earlier date. Finally, the
Exchange notes that NYSE Arca currently utilizes a similar
functionality in the form of its Non-Display Remove Modifier. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ See supra note 3.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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-BX-2016-059 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-BX-2016-059. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal 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-BX-2016-059, and should be submitted on or before
December 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27591 Filed 11-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P