[Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 26393-26394]
[DOCID:fr02jn09-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-55-000]

County of Butte, CA Complainant v. California Department of Water
Resources Respondent; Notice of Complaint

May 26, 2009.
    Take notice that on May 22, 2009, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2008) and section 206 of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825(e) (2000), the County of Butte, California
(Complainant) filed a formal complaint against the California
Department of Water Resources (Respondent) alleging that the respondent
violated the Commission's guidelines regarding recreational development
and public safety, as well as its license for the Oroville Facilities
project.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of

the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a
party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or
protests, must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's
answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the
Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 11, 2009.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12729 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 27895]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4174-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Arkansas; 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 Arkansas (FEMA-4174-DR), dated April 29, 2014, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 29, 2014.

    Pulaski, Randolph, and White Counties for Individual Assistance.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-11127 Filed 5-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Test costs attributable to a SNUN are likely to be much lower than the costs that would be implied by adding up costs of all of the testing recommended in the SNUR for that chemical, and usually are zero. See the main text of this report for a discussion of testing.
References
29 CFR 1910. Occupational Safety and Health Standards. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, Title 29, November 25, 1983.
63 FR 41847. Test Guidelines; Notice of Availability, Federal Register, Volume 63, August 5, 1998.
      64 FR 60914. Category for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic New Chemical Substances, Federal Register, Volume 64, November 8, 1999.
      71 FR 6733. Export Notification; Proposed Change to Reporting Requirements, Federal Register, Volume 71, February 9, 2006. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-005 8 at http://www.regulations.gov.
75 FR 773. TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture and Significant New Use Notification Electronic Reporting; Revisions to Notification Regulations, Federal Register, Volume 75, January 6, 2010.
ASTM. American Society for Standards and Materials. http://www.astm.org.
Best, 1997. Personal communication between Tom DeCoff of Eastern Research Group, Lexington, MA and Best Manufacturing Co. technical support services, Austin, TX, December 1997.
      BLS, 2006a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2. ECEC Occupational Comparability between SOC and OCS. Downloaded February 2006 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0003.htm.
     BLS, 2006b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (April 28, 2006), at http://www.bls.gov.
BLS, 2006c. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Change has Come to the ECI (June 14, 2006) at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0001.htm
      BLS, 2006d. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index, Historical Listing Current-Dollar 1975-2005 (May 10, 2006) at http://www.bls.gov/web/ecconst.pdf.
BLS, 2008. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008 Congressional Budget Submission (2008) at http://www.dol.gov/dol/budget/2008/PDF/CBJ-2008-V3-01.pdf
BLS, 2014. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics [OES]. May 2013	National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Sectors	31, 32, and 33  - Manufacturing. (May 2014) at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_31-33.htm
BLS, 2016a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables Historical Data December 2006  -  December 2015" ." March 10, 2016, Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuphst.pdf (Note: The BLS report title and content are updated periodically to include more recent data, on the same website.)
     BLS, 2016b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index- All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average (Series ID: CUUR0000SA0), extracted April 2016. Available through http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate
     BLS, 2016c. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index  -  Total Compensation: All Workers, Private Industry, Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIS2010000000000I), extracted April 2016. Available through http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate.
BLS, 2016d. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index  -  Total Compensation: Professional and  Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted April 2016. http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate.
Branch, 2006. Raphael E. Branch and Lowell Mason. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Seasonal adjustment in the ECI and the conversion to NAICS and SOC."  Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. Available at www.bls.gov.
BT Office Products, 1997. BT Office Products International. Office Products Catalog, 1997.
Caroll, 2006. Richard E. Caroll. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Changes affecting the Employment Cost Index: an overview."  Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. Available at www.bls.gov
CMA, 1991. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burden Associated with	PMN Submissions. Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers	Association, Washington, DC.
EPA, 1989. U.S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Economic Analysis of Final Significant New Use Rules: General Provisions for New Chemical Follow- Up. Washington, DC, July 19, 1989. (OTS/RIB later became OPPT/EPAB.)
      EPA, 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs). Washington, DC, June 1, 1992.
      EPA, 1994. U. S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications. Washington, DC, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became OPPT/EPAB.)
     EPA, 1997. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Chemistry Assistance Manual for Premanufacture Notification Submitters, EPA 744-R-97-003, March 1997. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/chem-pmn/
      EPA, 1998. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 168 Chemical Substances and Background Support Document for Economic Analysis of	Significant New Use Rules. Washington, DC, January 1998.
EPA, 1999. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 41 Chemical Substances and Background Support Document for Economic Analysis of Significant New Use Rules. Washington, DC, July 20, 1999. (Docket OPPTS-50635.)
      EPA, 2000. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 1139.06. [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29, 2000.
     EPA, 2002a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. Washington, DC. August 2002.
EPA, 2002b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC: June 10, 2002.
     EPA, 2003a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances. Washington, DC, 2003. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA-HQ-OPPTS-2002-0078 at http://www.regulations.gov.
     EPA, 2003b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Significant New Uses of Certain Chemical Substances, 68 FR 15061, March 28, 2003. EPA Docket No. OPPT-2002-0060.
     EPA, 2005a. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005, available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-005 8-0017 at http://www.regulations.gov.
      EPA, 2005b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICR No. 118.08. [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal). Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, October 11, 2005.
      EPA, 2006. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Harmonized Test Guidelines, available at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/870_Health_Effects_Test_Guidelines/index.html
      EPA, 2007a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 0574.14. [Information Collection Request for] Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances: Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act, December 6, 2007.
     EPA, 2007b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances (EPA Docket OPPT-2003-0063), December 4, 2006 (Revised March 12, 2007).
     EPA, 2007c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 38 Chemical Substances (EPA Docket OPPT-2006-0898), August 17, 2007
EPA, 2008a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides Programs, Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change in	Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides, June 2008, available from the Federal Docket	Management System as EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110-0046 at http://www.regulations.gov.
      EPA, 2008b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Final Significant New Use Rule for 183 Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates, August 20, 2007.
     EPA, 2008c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, "New Chemicals Program: Is a Filing Necessary for my Chemical," (Updated June 23, 2008) web page at www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/whofiles.htm
EPA, 2008d. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Significant New Use Rule for Chloranil, January 8, 2008.
EPA, 2009a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0296). July 13, 2009
EPA, 2012. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No.: 0795.14 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. December 18, 2012 at http://www.regulations.gov.
Grainger, 2014. Grainger Industrial Supply Online Catalog. Accessed June 2014 at http://www.grainger.com/
Kearney, 1988a. Memorandum to Bill Massouda, Reporting and recordkeeping costs for a generic SNUR, February 3, 1988. [Memo submitted to U.S. EPA/Office of Toxic Substances (now OPPT) under contract 68-02-3980 with A.T.Kearney, Inc.].
      Kearney, 1988b. Estimated Cost of the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, June 1, 1988. Prepared by Kearney/Centaur for US EPA.
NTIS. National Technical Information Service. http://www.ntis.gov.
OECD. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. http://www.oecd.org.
OECD, 2010. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Guidance Manual for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials. June 2010. Accessed from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2009)20/rev&doclanguage=en
OPM, 2014. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2014-DCB, Washington Baltimore Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2014/general-schedule/dcb.pdf.
      OSHA, 1983. US Dept of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses of the Hazard Communication Standard. Washington DC, August 9, 1983.
Sleemi, 2006. Fehimida Sleemi. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment Cost Index Publication Plans". Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. available at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/04/art2full.pdf
U.S. Postal Service (USPS). 2013. "Prices" < https://www.usps.com/ship/service-chart.htm >. Accessed 2013.
U.S. Safety, 2011. "Cartridge & Filter Selection Guide", available at http://www.ussafety.com/media_vault/documents/1343332743.pdf
      Weinstein, 2004. Harriet G. Weinstein and Mark A. Loewenstein, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Comparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series. Originally posted August 25, 2004 at http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20040823ar01p1.htm


Comply Orders and Price to Display Orders, whereby an Order that has
been repriced by the System upon entry may be cancelled or reentered if
a previously unavailable price level becomes available, promotes price
discovery and provision of greater liquidity by facilitating the
display of an Order at its chosen limit price. Because a reentered
Order always receives a new timestamp, moreover, the functionality does
not present fairness concerns that might arise if an Order that was not
displayed became displayed at a different price level while retaining
the timestamp that it received when originally entered.
    The Non-Displayed Order provides a means by which Participants may
access and/or offer liquidity without signaling to other Participants
the extent of their trading interest. Moreover, because the Non-
Displayed Order may lock a Protected Quotation, it provides a means by
which a Participant may provide price improvement. For example, if the
Best Bid was $11 and the Best Offer was $11.01, a Non-Displayed Order
to buy at $11.01 would provide $0.01 price improvement to an incoming
sell Order priced at the Best Bid.
    In addition, the repricing functionality associated with Non-
Displayed Order promotes provision of greater liquidity and eventual
price discovery (via reporting of Order executions) because it
facilitates the

posting of a Non-Displayed Order at its chosen limit price. In
addition, the functionality that cancels Non-Displayed Orders when
crossed by a Protected Quotation helps to prevent trade-throughs by
ensuring that a Non-Displayed Order will not execute at a price
inferior to the Price of a Protected Quotation. Because a reentered
Order always receives a new timestamp, moreover, the functionality does
not present fairness concerns that might arise if an Order was able to
move price while retaining an earlier timestamp.
    The primary purpose of Post-Only Orders is to ``provide displayed
liquidity to the market and thereby contribute to public price
discovery--an objective that is fully consistent with the Act.'' \74\
Under the prevailing ``maker/taker'' cost structure of most exchanges,
the Post-Only Order also allows a Participant to control its trading
costs by giving consideration to costs in determining whether the Order
should execute upon entry. However, the manner in which the Post-Only
Order operates ensures that a Post-Only Order that locks or crosses an
Order on the PSX Book will either execute upon entry or post at a
displayed price that potentially provides liquidity. Moreover, because
a Post-Only Order does not cancel back to the Participant if it cannot
post at its entered limit price, it does not provide a means to
ascertain the existence of locking or crossing Orders without also
reflecting a commitment to execute or post and display. Similarly, the
functionality that allows a Post-Only Order to be marked IOC does not
provide information regarding the existence of locking or crossing
Orders on the PSX Book since the Order has its price adjusted
automatically, without reference to the price of any other Orders other
than Orders at the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ SR-NYSE-2014-32 Approval Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the processing of Post-Only Orders with respect to
locking or crossing Protected Quotations serves the same purposes as
the processing discussed above with respect to Price to Comply Orders
and Price to Display Orders. By accepting a Non-Attributable Post-Only
Order that locks or crosses a Protected Quotation with a locking, non-
displayed price and displayed price that is one minimum increment
inferior to the locking price, the Exchange allows the displayed price
of the Order to promote price discovery by establishing a new NBBO or
adding to liquidity available at the NBBO, while also allowing the non-
displayed price of the Order to provide price improvement when the
Order is executed. An Attributable Post-Only Order similarly promotes
price discovery by establishing a new NBBO or adding liquidity
available at the NBBO.
    The repricing functionality associated with Post-Only Orders,
whereby an Order that has been repriced by the System upon entry may be
cancelled or reentered if a previously unavailable price level becomes
available, promotes price discovery and provision of greater liquidity
by facilitating the display of an Order at its chosen limit price.
Because a reentered Order always receives a new timestamp, moreover,
the functionality does not present fairness concerns that might arise
if an Order that was not displayed became displayed at a different
price level while retaining the timestamp that it received when
originally entered.
    A Post-Only Order may be designated as an ISO and accepted at a
price that locks or crosses a Protected Quotation, since such
designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has
simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as
necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected
Quotations that the Post-Only Order would lock or cross.\75\ Because
the Exchange maintains an active regulatory surveillance and
enforcement program to verify that Participants are not improperly
designating Orders as ISOs, the possibility for a Participant to
systematically use a Post-Only Order marked ISO to occupy a price level
while locking Protected Quotations is mitigated. Moreover, the System
does not interpret a Post-Only Order that is marked ISO but that has
its price adjusted prior to posting as the basis for accepting
additional Orders at the Order's limit price level, thereby providing
further assurance against the use of an ISO designation for an improper
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See SR-NYSE-2014-32 Approval Order (affirming that
exchanges may adopt rules allowing market participants to ``ship and
post'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Maker Peg Orders allow a Market Maker to maintain a
continuous two-sided quotation at a price that is compliant with the
requirements for Market Makers set forth in Rule 4613(a)(2). Thus, the
Order Type serves the function of ensuring that Market Makers offer
Displayed and Attributable liquidity at prices that bear a reasonable
relation to the NBBO. Of course, Market Makers may also provide
liquidity at prices closer to the NBBO than those established by the
Market Maker Peg Order, but the Order Type enables the Market Maker to
provide a backstop of liquidity at prices that are not unreasonably
distant from the NBBO.
    Several of the available Order Attributes merely provide means to
designate the basic parameters of any Order: these include price, size,
Time-in-Force, Attribution, and Display. The proposed rules clearly
state limitations applicable to each of these parameters, such as
available Times-in-Force and limitations on the permissible prices and
sizes of Orders.
    The Pegging Order Attribute allows a Participant to have the System
adjust the price of the Order continually in order to keep the price
within defined parameters. Thus, the System performs price adjustments
that would otherwise be performed by the Participant through
cancellation and reentry of Orders. The fact that a new timestamp is
created for a Pegged Order whenever it has its price adjusted allows
the Order to seek additional execution opportunities and ensures that
the Order does not ``jump the queue'' with respect to any Orders that
were previously at the Pegged Order's new price level. Thus, while the
Order Attribute may be seen as introducing additional complexity with
respect to the operation of the Exchange, it is in effect merely a
process for removing and entering Orders at new prices based on changed
market conditions.
    The Minimum Quantity Order Attribute allows a Participant that may
wish to buy or sell a large amount of a security to avoid signaling its
trading interest unless it can purchase a certain minimum amount. Thus,
the Order Attribute supports the interest of institutional investors
and others in being able to minimize the impact of their trading on the
price of securities.
    The Routing Order Attribute, which is thoroughly described in
existing Rule 3315, provides an optional means by which a Participant
may direct the Exchange to seek opportunities to execute an Order at
other market centers. The System is designed to pursue execution
opportunities on behalf of Participants in an aggressive manner by, in
most instances, first obtaining shares available on the PSX Book, then
routing to other market centers in accordance with the strategy
designated by the Participant, then returning the PSX Book as if a new
Order before posting to the PSX Book. In addition, to maximize
execution opportunities, the System will, as appropriate and in
accordance with Regulation NMS, designate a Routable Order as an
Intermarket Sweep Order.
    The Discretion Order Attribute allows a Participant to expand
opportunities for an Order to access liquidity by

allowing it to execute at any price within a specified range. Thus,
while there is some complexity associated with the processing of
Discretionary Orders, the Order Attribute merely allows the System to
ascertain whether, under the conditions provided for in the rule, the
Participant could access liquidity at a price within the range that the
Participant has designated. If so, the Order Attribute generates an IOC
Order to access the liquidity. Moreover, it should be noted that
although in some circumstances, the System will examine Orders on the
PSX Book that are not Displayed to ascertain the existence of execution
opportunities, the System would convey information to the Participant
regarding such Orders only by executing against them. Thus, the
discretionary price range reflects an actionable commitment by the
Participant to trade at prices in that range. As a result, the Order
Attribute promotes price discovery through executions that occur in the
price range. Finally, it should be noted that Discretionary IOCs access
liquidity, and therefore the Order Attribute does not present an
opportunity for a Participant to obtain a rebate with respect to
executions against previously posted Orders.
    The Reserve Size Order Attribute allows a Participant to display
trading interest at a given price while also posting additional non-
displayed trading interest. The functionality assists the Participant
in managing this trading interest by eliminating the need for the
Participant to enter additional size following the execution of the
displayed trading interest. Thus, the functionality achieves a balance
between promoting price discovery through displayed size and allowing a
Participant to guard against price impact by hiding the full extent of
its trading interest. The random reserve feature of the Order further
assists a Participant in not revealing the extent of its trading
interest because it diminishes the likelihood that other Participants
will conclude that the Order is a Reserve Size Order if they repeatedly
view it being replenished at the same size. Similarly, the manner in
which the Exchange disseminates data regarding the execution and
replenishment of a Reserve Size Order ensures that the process is
indistinguishable to other Participants from the execution of an Order
without Reserve Size followed by the entry of a new Order; this
processing also ensures that only the displayed portion of the Reserve
Size Order is treated as a Protected Quotation.
    The Intermarket Sweep Order attribute is a function of Regulation
NMS, which provides for an Order to execute without respect to
Protected Quotations if it is designated as an ISO and if one or more
additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against
the full displayed size of any Protected Quotation with a price that is
superior to the price of the Order identified as an ISO. As recently
reaffirmed by the Commission, Regulation NMS allows such additional
orders to be routed by an exchange or by the Participant that enters
the ISO.\76\ Accordingly, the exchange receiving an ISO may accept the
receipt of the Order as a representation that the Participant entering
it has satisfied its obligations; provided, however, that the exchange
itself maintains a surveillance and enforcement program to verify that
the Participant is not acting in violation of this requirement. For
this reason, it is also consistent with the Act for a Participant to
designate an Order with a Time-in-Force longer than IOC, or an Order
with functionality such as the Post-Only Order, as an ISO.\77\
Specifically, attaching an ISO designation to such Order reflects a
representation that the Participant has determined that Protected
Quotations at the price of the Order have been eliminated, such that
the Order is entitled to post and provide liquidity. In the case of a
Post-Only Order, however, if the Order's price is adjusted to avoid
executing against an Order on the PSX Book, PSX will not consider the
ISO designation in determining whether the Post-Only Order's limit
price level is now open, since the Post-Only ISO itself is not actually
posting at that price. Accordingly, in that circumstance the use of a
Post-Only ISO cannot be used to open a price level to additional Orders
unless the Exchange ascertains through market data provided by other
exchanges that the price level actually is open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ SR-NYSE-2014-32 Approval Order.
    \77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously stated, the
Exchange is not proposing substantively to modify the operation of any
of its current Order Types or Order Attributes or the operation of the
System; rather, the proposed rule change is intended to provide more
detail regarding the System's functionality. The proposed rule change
is not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather to
provide additional specificity and transparency to Participants and the
investing public regarding PSX's Order Types, Order Attributes, and
System functionality. Since the Exchange does not proposed
substantively to modify the operation of Order Types, Order Attributes,
or System functionality, the proposed changes will not impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-29 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-Phlx-2015-29. 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-29, and should be submitted on or before April
27, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07751 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 503]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-16-000]

Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; Tri-State Generation
and Transmission Association, Inc.

    Take notice that on December 23, 2019, pursuant to sections 205 and
206 of the Federal Power Act,\1\ Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2019), Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Association, Inc. (Petitioner), filed a petition for declaratory order
requesting that the Commission terminate controversy and remove
uncertainty regarding the La Plata Electric Association, Inc. and
United Power, Inc. complaints, subject to the Commission's regulatory
jurisdiction under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, as
more fully explained in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824e (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on January 13, 2020.

    Dated: December 30, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-28498 Filed 1-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P