[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64536-64539]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93558; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-088]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Equity 7, Section 118 of the Fee Schedule

November 12, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 1, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's pricing schedule at
Equity 7, Section 118(a), as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
schedule of credits, at Equity 7, Section 118(a). Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend the criteria for two existing credits of
$0.0029 per share executed with respect to its schedule of credits for
displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated
Retail Orders) that provide liquidity in Tapes A, B and C.
    The Exchange proposes to amend two existing credits in Tapes A, B
and C of $0.0029 per share executed. One of the existing credits
applies to members (i) with shares of liquidity provided in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent more than 0.675% of Consolidated Volume during the month. The
other credit applies to members (i) with shares of liquidity accessed
in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs
that represent more than 0.80% of Consolidated Volume during the month,
and (ii) with shares of liquidity provided in all securities through
one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent more than
0.60% of Consolidated Volume.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the credits in all three Tapes by
also requiring a member to execute an average daily volume (``ADV'') of
at least 350,000 shares of Midpoint Extended Life Orders (``M-ELOs'')
\3\ during the month. The proposed amendments will increase the extent
to which members engage in M-ELO activity on the Exchange and grow the
extent of such activity over time. From time to time, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to recalibrate the criteria for credits such
as these to ensure that the credits remain appropriately challenging
for participants to attain in light of changes to their levels of
activity on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Equity 4, Rule 4702(b)(14), a ``Midpoint
Extended Life Order'' is an Order Type with a Non-Display Order
Attribute that is priced at the midpoint between the NBBO and that
will not be eligible to execute until a minimum period of 10
milliseconds has passed after acceptance of the Order by the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and further the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that they
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposals are also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Proposals Are Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposals are reasonable in several respects. As a
threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive
forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that
constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this
market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposals represent reasonable attempts by the
Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its
competitors.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to amend the credit of
$0.0029 per share executed, which applies to members (i) with shares of
liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.675% of Consolidated
Volume during the month, and the credit of $0.0029 per share executed,
which applies to members (i) with shares of liquidity accessed in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent more than 0.80% of Consolidated Volume during the month, and
(ii) with shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or
more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.60%
of Consolidated Volume. The proposed additional requirement of
executing an ADV of at least 350,000 shares of M-ELOs during the month
will encourage members that currently qualify for the credit to
increase the extent to which members engage in M-ELO activity.
    From time to time, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
recalibrate the criteria for credits such as this one to ensure that
the credits remain appropriately challenging for participants to attain
in light of changes to their levels of activity on the Exchange. The
Exchange has limited resources at its disposal to devote to incentives
and it periodically reassesses the allocation of those resources when
they prove to be ineffective.

Additionally, these proposals are reasonable because they will provide
extra incentives to members to engage in substantial amounts of MELO-
related activity on the Exchange during a month. The Exchange believes
that if such incentives are effective, then any ensuing increase in M-
ELOs and executions on the Exchange will improve the quality of the M-
ELO market, and the market overall, to the benefit of M-ELO and all
market participants.
    The Exchange notes that those market participants that are
dissatisfied with the proposals are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that offer more generous pricing or less stringent
qualifying criteria.
The Proposals Are Equitable Allocations of Credits
    The Exchange believes that it is an equitable allocation to modify
the eligibility requirements for its transaction credits because the
proposals will encourage members to increase the extent to which they
add liquidity to the Exchange. To the extent that the Exchange succeeds
in increasing the levels of liquidity and activity on the Exchange,
including in segments for which there is an observed need or demand,
such as non-displayed, MELO, and Tape B securities, then the Exchange
will experience improvements in its market quality, which stands to
benefit all market participants. The Exchange also believes it is
equitable to recalibrate or revise existing criteria for its credits to
ensure that the credits remain appropriately challenging for
participants to attain in light of changes to their levels of activity
on the Exchange.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Proposals Are Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange believes that its proposals to amend the qualifying
criteria for its transaction credits are not unfairly discriminatory
because these credits are available to all members. Moreover, these
proposals stand to improve the overall market quality of the Exchange,
to the benefit of all market participants, by incentivizing members to
increase the extent of their liquidity provision or activity on the
Exchange, including in segments for which there is an observed need or
demand, such as non-displayed, M-ELO, and Tape B securities. The
Exchange also believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to recalibrate
or revise existing criteria for its credits to ensure that the credits
remain appropriately challenging for participants to attain in light of
changes to their levels of activity on the Exchange.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposals will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage.
    As noted above, Nasdaq's proposals to amend transaction credits are
intended to have market-improving effects, to the benefit of all
members. Any member may elect to achieve the levels of liquidity or
activity required in order to qualify for the amended credits.
    The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other
venues to the extent they believe that the proposed qualification
criteria for or amounts of these credits are not attractive. As one can
observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to credit changes. The Exchange notes
that its pricing tier structure is consistent with broker-dealer fee
practices as well as the other industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem credit levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted
from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own credits in response,
and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which credit
changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.
    The proposed amended credits are reflective of this competition
because, even as one of the largest U.S. equities exchanges by volume,
the Exchange has less than 20% market share, which in most markets
could hardly be categorized as having enough market power to burden
competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to credit changes. This is in addition to
free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues which
comprises upwards of 44% of industry volume.
    The Exchange's proposals to amend its transaction credits are pro-
competitive in that the Exchange intends for the changes to increase
liquidity addition and activity on the Exchange, thereby rendering the
Exchange a more attractive and vibrant venue to market participants.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\8\ the Exchange has
designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-088 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-NASDAQ-2021-088. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-NASDAQ-2021-088 and should be submitted
on or before December 9, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25130 Filed 11-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 347-350]
[DOCID:fr05ja10-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Number IC09-731-001]

Information Collection; Notice of Submission to OMB for Its
Review and Approval of the Voluntary Survey on Advanced Metering and
Demand Response Programs

December 28, 2009.
    1. Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff
(Commission staff) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), for its review and approval, a survey of demand response and
time-based rate programs and tariffs, and advanced metering
infrastructure (AMI). This survey will enable Commission staff to
collect the necessary information to prepare a report for Congress,
which assesses various aspects of demand response in the United States,
as required by section 1252(e)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct 2005).\1\ The survey will be sent to approximately 3,443
electric power businesses and organizations who directly serve end-use
customers. The survey results will be processed and analyzed in order
to prepare the report and submit it to Congress in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 109-58, section 1252(e)(3), 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. This survey is Commission staff's third nationwide effort to
gather information on the dispersion of advanced metering and demand
response programs. Continued industry cooperation is important for us
to obtain information that is as accurate and up-to-date as possible,
so that we may respond to Congress, and provide information to states
and other market participants. Commission staff seeks to strongly
encourage all survey recipients to complete the survey.
    3. Commission staff has designed a survey that imposes a minimal
burden on respondents by providing an easy-to-complete form that
includes such user-friendly features as pre-populated fields and drop-
down menus, while providing Commission staff with the information
necessary to prepare the report directed by EPAct 2005 section
1253(e)(3). It is a streamlined and simplified version of past surveys
and can be electronically filed. A paper version of the survey may be
filed by those who are unable to file electronically.

I. Background

    4. EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3) requires the Commission to prepare
and publish a report, by appropriate region, that assesses demand
response resources, including those available from all consumer
classes. Specifically, EPAct 2005 requires that the Commission identify
and review:
    (A) Saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters and
communications technologies, devices and systems;
    (B) Existing demand response programs and time-based rate programs;
    (C) the annual resource contribution of demand resources;
    (D) the potential for demand response as a quantifiable, reliable
resource for regional planning purposes;
    (E) steps taken to ensure that, in regional transmission planning
and operations, demand resources are provided equitable treatment as a
quantifiable, reliable resource relative to the resource obligations of
any load-serving entity, transmission provider, or transmitting party;
and
    (F) regulatory barriers to improved customer participation in
demand response, peak reduction and critical period pricing programs.
    5. On August 7, 2009, a notice was published in the Federal
Register, 74 FR 39,682 (2009) (August 7 Notice), requesting comments on
proposed updates to the FERC-727, Demand Response and Time Based Rate
Programs Survey (OMB Control No. 1902-0214), and FERC-728, Advanced
Metering Survey (OMB Control No. 1902-0213). In the August 7 Notice,
Commission staff explained that it had investigated alternatives to
fielding and collecting data using a FERC-designed survey, including
using data from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, the
data from NERC and EIA will not be available to the Commission in time
to complete the 2010 report to Congress.

II. Discussion

    6. Commission staff appreciate the useful comments on the survey
questions submitted in response to the August 7 Notice. Within the
limits of the available survey instrument, Commission staff made
revisions to improve the clarity of the questions, to update the survey
to capture technological advances, and to reduce the burden in
responding. In certain cases, Commission staff did not make the
suggested changes because more detailed information is needed to
respond to the specific statutory provisions in EPAct 2005, to provide
useful data, or to ensure that the survey is consistent with previous
surveys. Commenters noted that this survey is much more concise than
previous ones and will help reduce the collection burden significantly.
Commission staff agrees, and proposes that with the updates and the
changes that have been made, the survey will not be onerous to
complete. Commission staff plans to encourage all potential respondents
to complete the survey. A higher response rate will enable Commission
staff to obtain more precise information. Below is a summary of the
major changes to the survey and responses to the concerns expressed by
commenters.

A. Guidance on Responding to Survey Questions

    7. In response to a request for instructions or other guidance on
how to calculate the potential reductions for price-based (time-based)
and other voluntary programs, Commission staff has revised the survey
instructions to describe possible methodologies, such as the
methodologies used in A National Assessment of Demand Response

Potential.\2\ These methodologies are just examples and respondents are
not required to use them. Furthermore, in order to increase
transparency, the instructions request that the respondents describe
their estimation method in the comment field associated with the
program. Commission staff acknowledges that it may be difficult for
some respondents to estimate the potential reductions for price-based
programs, and recognizes that estimates of reductions for price-based
programs may be less reliable than for incentive-based programs.
However, Commission staff has collected this information in past
surveys and sees value in the ability to compare the past and current
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A National Assessment of Demand Response Potential (June
2009), available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff[hyphen]reports/
06[hyphen]09[hyphen]demand[hyphen]response.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Commission staff received a general comment that even though the
survey includes definitions, the lack of a single set of industry-wide
definitions will lead to inaccurate results. According to the
commenter, potential respondents who are aware that their data will be
released publicly in an identifiable form, and that the public will
likely draw comparisons from the data between respondents, may choose
not to respond, or will be compelled to portray themselves in a light
most favorable to its intended audience. In either situation, there is
a risk that reported data will be less accurate. Commission staff
agrees that the lack of industry-wide standards and precise definitions
may reduce the accuracy and comparability of the survey results.
However, it is not possible for Commission staff to specify each and
every parameter that may be required to formulate survey responses for
demand response programs that vary by geography, participation, type
and sponsorship. Nevertheless, efforts are underway by the North
American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and NERC to develop such
standards and definitions. Commission staff encourages survey
recipients to consider the NAESB and NERC efforts and to use their best
efforts to provide accurate responses.
    9. In addition, the Commission received comments related to whether
the results should be publicly released or aggregated so as to mask the
identity of individual respondents. A commenter argues that the data
should either be kept confidential or be aggregated because potential
respondents may consider much of it competitively sensitive. Another
commenter argues that publicly releasing the data will lead to low
survey response levels. However, another commenter requests that the
Commission continue to publicly release the data collected in
spreadsheet format that allows the public to match and sort programs by
entity, region, state, and customer class. Commission staff recognizes
that confidentiality is a concern for particular sub-sets of
respondents, such as curtailment service providers. However, Commission
staff also recognizes that publicly releasing the information collected
in the survey is useful to the public. Several researchers and market
participants have told Commission staff that they are using the data.
While Commission staff could attempt to aggregate the data so as to
mask company origin, doing so would complicate the analysis, making it
more difficult for the Commission to meet its statutory requirement for
regional reporting, and make the 2010 data less comparable to the data
collected in 2006 and 2008. In those surveys, the Commission allowed
case-by-case requests for confidential treatment and will do so again
in 2010.
    10. Several commenters requested clarification on the definition of
advanced meters, and one commenter suggested that the Commission should
distinguish between the recording capability of the meter and its
reporting intervals. Commission staff clarifies that the definition of
advanced meters includes meters with one-way communication capability,
as well as two-way communication capability, and declines to
distinguish between the recording and reporting functions. The
objective of the survey is to assess the penetration of advanced
metering rather than to draw distinctions between meter varieties or to
enumerate the frequency of meter reading.
    11. A commenter argues that the use of the terms ``number of
meters'' and ``number of customers'' in Questions Three and Seven is
ambiguous. They suggest that, if the terms are synonymous, only one be
used, and if the terms are not synonymous, then the difference be
explained. Question Three explicitly asks for the number of customers
and for the number of meters in each of three customer classes.
Commission staff does not agree that the terms are ambiguous or that
only a single term can be used. Some large customers have multiple
meters, and some customers are unmetered, so there is not a one-to-one
correspondence between the two terms. Question Seven requests only the
``number of retail customers,'' and does not use the term ``number of
meters.''
    12. Commission staff clarifies that respondents may answer with
either coincident or non-coincident demand. Coincident data is not
always readily available and requiring respondents to provide this
information would create an additional burden. Commission staff also
clarifies that Question Four requests information about the number of
customers that have the capability to receive data through the listed
methods, rather than the number of customers who actually receive data
through the listed methods.

B. Revisions to the Survey Definitions and Questions

    13. According to one commenter, many respondents do not employ as
many customer class categories as used in the previous surveys.
Therefore respondents must either develop a system for developing the
requested data by customer class, thus increasing the filing burden, or
estimate their responses, reducing the accuracy of the data. In
response, Commission staff has reduced the number of customer class
categories to three in the 2010 survey: Residential, commercial and
industrial, and other. Doing so will reduce the burden on respondents
and encourage more entities to participate, without significantly
reducing the value of the collected information.
    14. Commission staff declines to accept a suggestion to specify in
the instructions whether responses should enumerate ``processes, loads,
sites, or data streams'' to reduce double counting of meters. While
double counting may occur in the circumstances that the commenter
describes, Commission staff expects such installations to be relatively
uncommon. Further, it is not clear which of the suggested categories
best meets the Commission's data collection objective, or precisely how
a ``process'' differs from a ``load,'' for instance.
    15. A commenter suggests that Question Five should ask whether
demand response programs are pilot programs, or full-scale programs.
Another suggests that the Commission request information about if and
when respondents plan to conduct pilot programs, studies or testing,
and if programs have been or will be phased out. Commission staff
declines to ask whether reported demand response programs are pilot
programs, or full-scale programs, as one commenter suggests. The
incremental information gained from this question is not sufficient to
justify the additional response burden and survey redesign. In
addition, the amount of demand response reported for each program is

an indicator of whether it is a pilot or full-scale program.
    16. A commenter suggests including a question asking respondents to
identify primary reasons leading to the implementation of a demand
response program, for example, economic, reliability, emergency
response, or voltage. Commission staff finds it unnecessary to adopt
such a question. The list of program types that appear in the survey
(for example, Critical Peak Pricing, Spinning Reserves, and Emergency
Demand Response) already reflect the primary reasons for which most
demand response programs are implemented.
    17. For further clarity, Commission staff has revised the survey's
definition of demand response programs to explicitly include both
incentive-based and time-based programs. The word ``Service'' now
follows the word ``Regulation'' in the list of program types in order
to make it consistent with the glossary and improve clarity. Commission
staff has replaced the term ``regional entity'' with the term ``NERC
Regional Entity'' to avoid confusion with other uses of the term
``entity.'' The survey now includes a field in Question Eight to
collect the number of times the respondent called on the demand
response program during the year. An entry of zero in the new field
will indicate that the program was not called.

III. Information Collection Statement

    In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507 (2006), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the
information collection described below to OMB for review of the
information collection requirements. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received comments
in response to its earlier notice and has provided responses in this
notice as discussed above and also made the notation in its submission
to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by February 4,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include this Docket No. IC09-731-000 as a
point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at
202-395-4638.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC09-731-000.
Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at http://
www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp. To file the
document electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on
Documents & Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First
time users will have to establish a user name and password. The
Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-
mail address upon receipt of comments.
    For paper filings, an original and 2 copies of the comments should
be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should
refer to Docket No. IC09-731-001.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FERC-731 (Demand Response and Time-Based
Rate Programs/Tariffs''), OMB No. (To be Determined) is used by the
Commission to implement EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3) (Pub. L. 109-58,
119 Stat. 594) (2005). EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3) requires the
Commission to prepare and publish an annual report, by appropriate
region, that assesses demand response resources, including those
available from all consumer classes.
    The Commission will use the information obtained by the survey to
prepare and publish a report, as required by EPAct 2005 as noted above,
by appropriate region that assesses demand response resources,
including those available from all consumer classes and describes the
saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters. With respect to
other issues the Commission must address in the report, the Commission
will seek assistance from state regulators and members of the industry
in presenting to Congress, a well informed and comprehensive report.
The proposed report will be the fifth annual report, and the third
based on survey data. The continuation of the survey and reporting
allows the Commission, Congress and the public to assess and follow
trends in the saturation and penetration rates of advanced meters,
resource contributions of demand response, and other related issues.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year approval of the
proposed information collection.
    Burden Estimate: The average public reporting burden for FERC-731
is estimated as follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of        Number of      Average burden    Total annual
            FERC data collection                respondents     responses per      hours per       burden hours
                                                annually (1)    respondent (2)    response (3)     (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-731....................................           3,443                1                4           13,772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $787,345
(3,443 respondents x $228.68 per respondent).
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information;

(3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to
respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6)
completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7)
transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the
burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-31211 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 182 (Thursday, September 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52947]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No.: PHMSA-2021-0095; Notice No. 2021-08]

Hazardous Materials: Public Meeting Notice for the Research,
Development & Technology Forum

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's
(PHMSA) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) will hold a public
Research, Development & Technology Forum October 12-15, 2021, virtually
on Microsoft Teams (MS Teams) to present the results of recently
completed projects, brief new project plans, and obtain stakeholder
input on the direction of current and future research projects on
topics including mitigation of climate change, risk management and
mitigation, packaging integrity, emerging technology, and technical
analysis to aid risk assessment.

DATES: The meeting will be held virtually on MS Teams from October 12
to 15, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on each
day.

ADDRESSES: DOT requests that attendees pre-register for these meetings
by completing the form, at: https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=WyTNxPBElUOhqjhI0lj3i42Qs1CodOdEpKD7cpFYhKRUNE9LRTlWVkI3QjlFSkhIUVFZNVFNWEpUSi4u.
    Conference call-in and ``live meeting'' capability will be
provided. Specific information about conference call-in and live
meeting access will be posted at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/research-and-development/hazmat/rd-meetings-and-events under ``Upcoming
Events.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Leyder or Britain Bruner, Ph.D.,
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Research, Development &
Technology, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Telephone: (202)
360-0664 and<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the meeting, OHMS will solicit
comments related to new research topics that may be considered for
inclusion in its future work. OHMS is particularly interested in the
research gaps associated with energetic materials (explosives)
characterization and transport, safe transportation of energy products
(e.g., crude oil), safe containment and transportation of compressed
gases, and safe packaging and transportation of charge storage devices
(e.g., lithium ion batteries), and how these might aid in mitigation of
climate change. The forum will also include an opportunity for
stakeholder input that identifies other research gaps related to the
transportation of hazardous materials.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 20, 2021, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-20599 Filed 9-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P