[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2224-2229]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00337]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71252; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Rule
928NY To Expand the Scope of the Existing Risk Limitation Mechanism To
Address Multiple, Successive Triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism

January 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 26, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 NYSE Rule 928NY to expand the scope
of the existing Risk Limitation Mechanism to address multiple,
successive triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 928NY to expand the scope
of the existing Risk Limitation Mechanism to address multiple,
successive triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism.
Overview
    The Exchange has in place a risk-limitation system that is designed
to help Market Makers and non-Market Maker ATP Holders (collectively,
referred to herein as ``dealers'') better manage risk during periods of
increased and significant trading activity. The three existing Risk
Limitation Mechanisms (described below) are designed to mitigate the
potential risks of multiple executions against a dealer's trading
interest that, in today's highly automated and electronic trading
environment, can occur simultaneously across multiple series and
multiple option classes. In operation, under current Rule 928NY, when a
dealer has triggered a Risk Limitation Mechanism in a given option
class (by breaching preset thresholds), the Exchange will cancel all
resting quotes and/or certain orders and will reject all subsequent
quotes and/or certain orders in the affected option class (underlying
symbol) until the dealer submits a message to the Exchange requesting
to re-enable the entry of quotes or certain orders. This temporary
suspension from

the market in the affected option classes (specifically as relates to
quoting or certain orders) is meant to operate as a safety valve that
forces dealers to re-evaluate their positions before requesting to re-
enter the market.
    As discussed below, the Exchange believes that the majority of
dealers that avail themselves of the Risk Limitation Mechanism utilize
automated, system-generated messages to request that the Exchange re-
enable the entry of their quotes or certain orders after triggering the
Risk Limitation Mechanism. Provided the dealer does not experience
multiple triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism in rapid succession,
the Exchange believes the automated re-enable message is sufficient.
    The goal of the current proposal is to address circumstances where
a dealer experiences multiple, successive triggers of the Risk
Limitation Mechanism, which the Exchange believes would be indicative
of the dealer experiencing a bona fide problem (i.e., a potential
system error). Thus, when a dealer experiences multiple, successive
triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism, the Exchange proposes a two-
pronged remedial response. First, the Exchange would cancel all of the
dealer's quotes or Applicable Orders (defined below)--as opposed to
cancelling only those quotes or certain orders in the option class
(underlying symbol) in which the dealer triggered the Risk Limitation
Mechanisms. Second, the Exchange would require that the dealer make
non-automated contact with the Exchange to re-enable the submission of
the dealer's quotes or Applicable Orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange will include as part of a Trader Update
appropriate contact information to be used by dealers when
requesting to re-enable the entry of quotes and orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed enhancement to current Rule
928NY would help maintain a fair and orderly market because it would
suspend all of the dealers' quoting or trading in certain orders
following multiple, successive triggers of the Risk Limitation
Mechanism and would require non-automated contact with the Exchange
before this suspension is lifted. The proposed modifications would
therefore encourage increased attention by dealers to their risk
tolerance and related controls. The Exchange is also proposing these
modifications in response to requests from its clients and believes the
changes will assist these clients in better managing their risks.
Existing Risk Limitation Mechanism
    The Exchange first adopted a risk-limitation system, as embodied in
Rule 928NY, to manage risk during periods of increased and significant
trading activity.\5\ The prior version of the Rule provided only a
Transaction-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism that applied solely to
Market Maker quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59472 (February 27,
2009), 74 FR 9843 (March 6, 2009) (SRNYSEALTR-2008-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, in response to an increasingly automated and electronic
trading environment, the Exchange adopted the risk protections afforded
under current Rule 928NY (Risk Limitation Mechanism).\6\ Current Rule
928NY expanded upon the earlier version by extending the transaction-
based limitation mechanism to orders from Market Makers as well as to
orders from non-Market Maker ATP Holders (``non-Market Makers'') \7\
and providing for two additional risk limitation mechanisms--a volume-
based mechanism and a percentage-based mechanism (collectively, the
``Risk Limitation Mechanisms''). In addition to applying to all Market
Maker quotes, the existing Risk Limitation Mechanisms apply to dealers'
orders submitted via ArcaDirect and those designated as one of two
``post no preference'' order types--specifically, PNP and PNP-Blind,
which account for upwards of ninety-five percent of order flow to the
Exchange (collectively, the ``Applicable Orders'').\8\ Each Risk
Limitation Mechanism is designed to measure a dealer's risk exposure
within a time period specified by the Exchange, based on either the
number of trades executed by the dealer (the ``Transaction-Based Risk
Limitation Mechanism''); the number of contacts entered by the dealer
(the ``Volume-Based Transaction-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism''); or
the percentage of a dealer's quoted size that gets traded (the
``Percentage-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-67713 (August 22,
2012), 77 FR 167 (August 28, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-39). The Risk
Limitation Mechanisms as set forth in current Rule 928NY (and the
proposal described herein) are only applicable to electronic trading
on the Exchange.
    \7\ The Exchange specified within Rule 928NY(a) that non-Market
Maker ATP Holders would be referred to as ``non-Market Makers'' for
purposes of Rule 928NY.
    \8\ See paragraphs (p) and (x) of Rule 900.3 (Orders Defined),
respectively. The Exchange notes that the rule is currently silent
as to the source and order types that are subject to the Risk
Limitation Mechanisms. The Exchange therefore proposes to modify
Commentary .07 to Rule 928NY to identify the source and the order
types to which the existing (and modified) Risk Limitation
Mechanisms apply and would announce via Trader Update any changes to
these source(s) or order types. Similarly, for the sake of clarity,
the Exchange proposes to replace ``order'' with ``Applicable Order''
in existing paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) to Rule 928NY, and
elsewhere in the rule as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per current Rule 928NY(a), the Exchange utilizes Trade Counters,
based on trading permit identification (or ``TPID''), to determine when
a Risk Limitation Mechanism has been triggered. The dealer selects from
within a range specified by the Exchange individual risk parameters
that, if breached, will trigger the selected Risk Limitation
Mechanism.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Per current Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY, the Exchange will
not (i) specify a minimum setting of less than one or a maximum
setting of more than 100 for the Transaction-Based Risk Limitation
Mechanism; (ii) specify a minimum setting of less than 20 or a
maximum setting of more than 5,000 for the Volume-Based Risk
Limitation Mechanism; or (iii) specify a minimum setting of less
than 100 or a maximum setting of more than 2,000 for the Percentage-
Based Risk Limitation Mechanism. The Exchange proposes to amend
Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY to reflect that any changes to these
settings would be announced to dealers via Trader Update, rather
than Regulatory Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per Commentary .08 to the Rule, while the existing Risk Limitation
Mechanisms apply to quotes and Applicable Orders from Market Makers and
non-Market Makers, use of this risk-limitation feature is mandated only
for Market Makers' quotes.\10\ Thus, Market Makers are required to
activate one of the three Risk Limitation Mechanisms at all times for
their quotes for each class in their appointment. However, the existing
Risk Limitation Mechanisms are entirely voluntary for Applicable Orders
submitted by Market Makers and non-Market Makers. With respect to the
Applicable Orders, Market Makers and non-Market Makers have the option
of availing themselves of one of the three Risk Limitation Mechanisms
for some or all of the option classes in which they trade/provide
quotes.\11\ A Market Maker may activate one Risk Limitation Mechanism
for its quotes and a different Risk Limitation Mechanism for its

Applicable Orders, even if both are activated for the same class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ When first implemented, Rule 928NY was entitled ``Market
Maker Risk Limitation Mechanism-OX'', and applied solely to--and was
mandated for--Market Maker quotes. However, when the rule was
revised in 2012, and the risk-limitation functionality was expanded
to cover Applicable Orders as well as quotes, the changes to the
title of the rule and the accompanying rule text did not make
entirely clear that the Risk Limitation Mechanism is required for
all Market Maker quotes. Thus, as proposed, new Commentary .04 will
state that use of the Risk Limitation Mechanism is mandated only for
Market Maker quotes and is otherwise optional.
    \11\ With respect to Applicable Orders submitted by dealers, the
Exchange has included in current Rule 928NY the concept of a
``specified class'' to indicate the option class(es) for which a
Risk Limitation Mechanism is activated; if a dealer does not
identify any ``specified class,'' none of the Risk Limitation
Mechanisms will be activated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per current Rule 928NY (e), and Commentary .01 to the Rule, once a
dealer's specified risk exposure is exceeded within the time period
specified by the Exchange (as tracked by the Trade Counter), the Risk
Limitation Mechanism is triggered and the System automatically cancels
electronic Applicable Orders or quotes by generating a ``bulk cancel''
message.\12\ Per Commentary .01, the bulk cancel message is processed
in time priority with any other quote, order or other message received
by the System.\13\ Thus, any quotes or orders that match with a Market
Maker's quote or with a dealers' [sic] Applicable Orders that were
received by the System prior to the receipt of the bulk cancel message
would be automatically executed. Similarly, quotes or orders received
by the System after receipt of the bulk cancel message would not be
executed against the cancelled quotes or Applicable Orders. In this
regard, Rule 6.40--in its current form and as proposed--would not
relieve dealers of their ``firm quote'' obligations under Rule 602 of
Regulation NMS \14\ or Rule 970NY. Furthermore, the proposed rule
change would not relieve Market Makers of their quoting obligations
under the Exchange's Rules.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 928NY(b)(1)-(3); (c) (1)-(3); and (d) (1)-(3).
    \13\ As previously noted, for the sake of clarity, the Exchange
proposes to revise the rule text to utilize ``Applicable Order''
rather than ``order'' where necessary.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.602.
    \15\ See, e.g., Rule 925NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A dealer that has been suspended from quoting or submitting
Applicable Orders in the affected class, pursuant to current Rule
928NY(e), may only re-enter the market by submitting a message to the
Exchange requesting re-entry and, until such message is submitted, any
subsequent quotes or Applicable Orders will be rejected by the
Exchange.\16\ The intended purpose of this forced suspension from
quoting and from certain trading in the affected class is to afford the
dealer an opportunity to evaluate its positions before opting to re-
enter the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 928NY(e), and Commentary .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In practice, the Exchange has received responses to bulk cancel
messages from dealers requesting to re-enter the market within as few
as two milliseconds. This rapid response time leads the Exchange to
conclude that the messages being submitted in response to the bulk
cancel messages are automated, system-generated messages. The effect of
this apparent automation is that dealers that are effectively kicked
out of the market (for their quotes or Applicable Orders) in the
affected class for triggering the Risk Limitation Mechanism can re-
enter the market within milliseconds. The Exchange believes that an
automated response is sufficient, provided the dealer does not
experience multiple triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism in rapid
succession.
    Under current Rule 928NY there is no mechanism for addressing
multiple, successive triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms within
a time period specified by the Exchange, which could be particularly
problematic for dealers if the markets turns in an unexpected
direction.
Proposed Changes to Risk Limitation Mechanism
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 928NY to address circumstances
where a dealer experiences multiple, successive triggers of the Risk
Limitation Mechanism. The Exchange proposes a two-pronged remedial
response. First, the Exchange would cancel all of the dealer's quotes
or Applicable Orders (defined below)--as opposed to cancelling only
those quotes or certain orders in the option class (underlying symbol)
in which the dealer triggered the Risk Limitation Mechanism. Second,
the Exchange would require that the dealer make non-automated contact
with the Exchange to re-enable the submission of the dealer's quotes or
certain orders
    Proposed Rule 928NY(a)(2) would provide for a ``trigger counter''
that (similar to the Trade Counter, which serves as the basis for
determining whether a Risk Limitation Mechanism has been triggered)
would track the number of times that a dealer has triggered any of the
Risk Limitation Mechanisms pursuant to current Rule 928NY(b), (c), or
(d).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This proposed addition would require that current Rule
929NY (a) be renamed from ``Trade Counter'' to ``Counters,'' and
renumbered such that ``Trade Counter'' would be numbered as proposed
Rule 928NY(a)(1). The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (a)
to refer to ``Applicable Orders,'' as referenced in Commentary .07
to the Rule (instead of ``orders'') to make clear which orders are
subject to the Risk Limitation Mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 928NY(f) outlines the actions that the System would
take if the trigger counter indicates that any of the Risk Limitation
Mechanisms have been triggered in excess of the number of times
specified by the dealer (within a parameter set by the Exchange, as
noted below) within the time period specified by the Exchange. In
short, once a dealer has exceeded the number of triggers of the Risk
Limitation Mechanisms, pursuant to paragraph (f) of Rule 928NY, all
Applicable Orders or quotes by a Market Maker or all Applicable Orders
by a non-Maker Maker would be cancelled.
    Specifically, per proposed Rule 928NY(f)(1), if the Risk Limitation
Mechanism is triggered pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), (c)(1) or (d)(1)
to this Rule, the System would automatically cancel all of the non-
Market Maker's Applicable Orders, regardless of which specified class
caused the underlying trigger of the Risk Limitation Mechanism. Per
proposed Rule 928NY(f)(2), if the Risk Limitation Mechanism is
triggered pursuant to paragraph (b)(2), (c)(2) or (d)(2) to this Rule,
the System would automatically cancel all of the Market Maker's
Applicable Orders, regardless of which specified class caused the
underlying trigger of the Risk Limitation Mechanism. And, per proposed
Rule 928NY(f)(3), if the Risk Limitation Mechanism is triggered
pursuant to paragraph (b)(3), (c)(3) or (d)(3) to this Rule, the System
would automatically cancel all of the Market Maker's quotes, regardless
of which appointed class caused the underlying trigger of the Risk
Limitation Mechanism.
    The difference between the existing Risk Limitation Mechanism
versus the proposed enhancement is the cancellation of all of a
dealer's Applicable Orders or quotes upon breach of proposed paragraph
(f) to Rule 928NY. Thus, if a dealer triggers a Risk Limitation
Mechanism, pursuant to paragraph (e) of current Rule 928NY, only the
dealer's quotes or Applicable Orders in the option class that triggered
the Risk Limitation Mechanism would be cancelled by the Exchange;
whereas if a dealer breaches proposed paragraph (f) of Rule 928NY, by
engaging in multiple triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanism in a
time period specified by the Exchange, all of that dealer's Applicable
Orders or quotes in any option class(es) submitted that day would be
cancelled--not just the Applicable Orders or quotes in the option
class(es) that led to the most recent trigger of the Risk Limitation
Mechanism.\18\ The Exchange believes

that this modification--to temporarily suspend quoting or Applicable
Orders in all classes actively traded by the dealer--would strengthen
the efficacy of the existing Risk Limitation Mechanisms by providing
dealers with increased sensitivity in setting risk tolerance and
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The cancellation will only apply to those quotes or
Applicable Orders submitted by the dealer that trading day. With
respect to the cancellation of all Applicable Orders, pursuant to
proposed paragraph (f) to Rule 928NY, this would include a
cancellation of Applicable Orders in option classes for which the
dealer may not have opted to utilize a Risk Limitation Mechanism.
Thus, even though dealers are not required to subject all option
classes traded to this risk-limitation feature, a breach of proposed
paragraph 928NY(f) would affect all Applicable Orders in all option
classes traded that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 928NY, upon breaching
proposed paragraph (f) of Rule 928NY, the System would automatically
cancel electronic Applicable Orders or quotes by generating a ``bulk
cancel'' message--just as the system currently does in the event of a
breach of the Risk Limitation Mechanism (i.e., current paragraph (e) of
Rule 928NY).\19\ In addition to the bulk cancel message, the System
would generate an alert message providing notice that the dealer has
exceeded the number of triggers of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms,
pursuant to paragraph (f) of Rule 928NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Relatedly, the Exchange also proposes to amend Commentary
.08 to Rule 928NY regarding the cancellation of Applicable Orders to
make it pertinent to paragraph (f), in addition to its current
application to paragraph (e) to Rule 928NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend current Commentary .02 to Rule
928NY to reflect that the Exchange would (and does) accept automated
messages from dealers requesting the re-enabling of quotes or
Applicable Orders, following a breach of paragraph (e). The Exchange
believes that this proposed change would add transparency to the
functioning of the Exchange and the types of messages it would accept
when a Risk Limitation Mechanism is triggered pursuant to paragraph (e)
of the Rule.
    The Exchange proposes to further amend current Commentary .02 to
Rule 928NY to require that, upon a dealer's breach of proposed
paragraph (f) to current Rule 928NY, the dealer would have to make non-
automated contact with the Exchange to enable the entry of all new
Applicable Orders or quotes, which had been cancelled pursuant to
proposed paragraph (f).\20\ The Exchange believes that requiring this
additional, non-automated contact will strengthen the efficacy of the
existing Risk Limitation Mechanisms by providing dealers with increased
sensitivity in setting risk tolerance and controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Specifically, proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY
provides that ``[i]f any of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms are
triggered pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of Rule 928NY, any
Applicable Orders sent by the non-Market Maker or Market Maker,
respectively, in any class, shall be rejected until the non-Market
Maker or Market Maker makes non-automated contact with the Exchange
to enable the entry of new Applicable Orders. If any of the Risk
Limitation Mechanisms are triggered pursuant to Rule 928NY(f)(3),
any quotes sent by the Market Maker, in any class, shall be rejected
until the Market Maker makes non-automated contact with the Exchange
to enable the entry of new quotes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY, the Exchange
would specify via Trader Update the applicable range within which
dealers could select the number of times the Risk Limitation Mechanism
could be triggered before breaching proposed paragraph (f) to Rule
928NY, but this setting would not be less than a minimum of one and a
maximum of 100. The Exchange believes that setting the parameters
within this broad range would provide dealers with ample flexibility in
setting their tolerance for risk. Those dealers with a lower risk
tolerance or those that may be prone to multiple, successive triggers
of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms in shorter periods of time, may opt
to select a number of triggers on the lower end of the range, thereby
optimizing the protection afforded by this proposed rule change, while
those dealers with a higher risk tolerance or that are less likely to
experience multiple, successive triggers of the Risk Limitation
Mechanism, may select the maximum allowable triggers to decrease the
protections afforded by the proposed rule change. Moreover, while the
Exchange retains discretion with respect to the levels at which it
could adjust these settings, the Exchange would not be permitted to
adjust the settings below the minimum or maximum proposed, which, the
Exchange believes would reasonably ensure that the settings are at all
times within a reasonable range.
    Consistent with current Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY, the
applicable time period within which dealers would select the number of
triggers before breaching proposed paragraph (f) to Rule 928NY would
not be less 100 milliseconds, unless otherwise announced by the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that specifying the applicable minimum,
maximum and/or default settings via Trader Update, including any
changes thereto in the future designed to ensure that the mechanisms
work as intended, would be consistent with the manner in which the
Exchange has communicated any changes to the existing Risk Limitation
Mechanism settings and is consistent with the manner in which the
Commission currently permits option exchanges to communicate settings
or parameters for various exchange mechanisms to their members other
than through the rule filing process, i.e., via notices, bulletins or
circulars.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-70037
(July 25, 2013); 78 FR 147 (July 31, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-62)
(Rule 967NY, which applies a trade collar mechanism to prevent the
immediate execution of certain incoming orders outside of a
specified parameter (referred to as a ``Trading Collar'') and
provides that changes to the Trading Collar may be announced by
Trader Update. See also BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') Rule
8140, which provides that, related to BOX's Quote Removal Mechanism
Upon Technical Disconnect, BOX Market Makers will be notified of the
value that ``n'' seconds represents via Regulatory Circular. See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58140 (July 10, 2008), 73
FR 41384 (July 18, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-40), in which the Commission
noted that ``n'' seconds would be configurable by BOX and any
subsequent re-configurations will be announced to Market Makers via
Regulatory Circular. See also Interpretation and Policy .05 to
Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') Rule 6.74A, which provides
that any determinations made by CBOE regarding CBOE's Automated
Improvement Mechanism, such as eligible classes, order size
parameters and the minimum price increment for certain responses,
shall be communicated in a Regulatory Circular. See also CBOE Rule
6.13(b)(i)(C)(2)(a), which provides that CBOE may establish certain
maximum order size eligibility requirements with respect to
automatic executions and announce such determinations via Regulatory
Circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes at this time to make a procedural change
for making announcements regarding functionality associated with the
Risk Limitation Mechanism. Presently the Exchange issues Regulatory
Bulletins when making such announcements. Going forward, the Exchange
proposes to issue a Trader Update in lieu of a Regulatory Bulletin.
Regulatory Bulletins generally contain information regarding legal and
regulatory matters while Trader Updates deal with issues such as
trading, systems changes and real-time market announcements. The
Exchange believes that it is more appropriate to make announcements
regarding the Risk Limitation Mechanism via Trader Update. Trader
Updates, like Regulatory Bulletins, are electronically distributed to
all ATP Holders and are posted on the Exchange's Web site. Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes amended current Commentaries .03 and .07 to Rule
928NY by replacing references to ``Regulatory Bulletin'' with ``Trader
Update.'' Should the Exchange make a change to the Risk Limitation
Mechanism settings, for example to accommodate changes in market
conditions or the technology needs and considerations of dealers, the
Exchange would issue a Trader Update at least one trading day in
advance of the settings becoming effective, which would give dealers
notice and opportunity to make any necessary adjustments to their risk
settings.
    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .04 to Rule 928NY, those dealers
that utilize any of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms would be
automatically subject to proposed paragraph (f) to Rule 928NY. Thus,
while the Risk Limitation

Mechanism is optional for each dealer's Applicable Orders, once a
dealer avails itself of the Risk Limitation Mechanism for some of the
option classes in which it trades, all of the option classes in which
that dealer trades would be subject to the proposed rule change.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Market Makers are required to utilize the Risk Limitation
Mechanism for all of their quotes and therefore all quotes would be
subject to the proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Commentary .06 to Rule 928NY, absent a breach
pursuant to Rule 928NY(f), the trigger counter (which would serve as
the basis for determining a breach of proposed paragraph (f)) would be
automatically reset and would commence a new count for dealers (1) when
a time period specified by the Exchange elapses; or (2) following any
intraday update to configurable thresholds, as provided in Commentary
.03 to this Rule 928NY. Per proposed Commentary .06 to Rule 928NY, in
the event of a breach pursuant to proposed Rule 928NY(f), the trigger
counter would be reset and would commence a new count when the affected
dealer makes non-automated contact with the Exchange to enable the
entry of new Applicable Orders or quotes, as provided in proposed
Commentary .02 to Rule 928NY.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to current Rule
928NY will enhance the existing Risk Limitation Mechanisms and enable
the Exchange to aid in mitigating the potential risks of multiple
executions against a dealer's trading interest that, in today's highly
automated and electronic trading environment, can occur simultaneously
across multiple series and multiple option classes.
Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Trader Update to be published no later than 60 days
following the effective date of this filing. The implementation date
will be no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Trader
Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \23\ which requires the
rules of an exchange to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by
providing dealers with greater control and flexibility over setting
their risk tolerance and more protection over risk exposure, if the
market moves in an unexpected direction.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that cancelling all quotes or
Applicable Orders and requiring dealers to make non-automated contact
with the Exchange following multiple, successive triggers of the Risk
Limitation Mechanism allows dealers to be sensitive to the rapid
trading that occurs in today's highly automated and electronic trading
environment. This increased sensitivity will enable dealers to avoid
transacting against their interests and will help to ensure that
executions will not occur at erroneous prices, thereby removing
impediments to and promoting a fair and orderly market.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interests because it
will permit dealers to better manage the potential risks of multiple
executions against a dealer's proprietary interest that, in today's
highly automated and electronic trading environment, can occur
simultaneously across multiple series and multiple option classes.
Consistent with the ability to better manage risk, the Exchange
anticipates that the proposed enhancement to the existing Risk
Limitation Mechanism could likewise enhance the Exchange's overall
market quality as a result of narrowed quote widths and increased
liquidity for series traded on the Exchange, which would benefit
investors and the public interest. As with the intent of the existing
Risk Limitation Mechanism, the Exchange believes that the proposed
modifications to Rule 928NY would further assist dealers in providing
aggressive quotes and increased liquidity, thus improving overall
market quality on the Exchange for the benefit of all investors and the
public.

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. The Exchange is proposing a
market enhancement that would provide dealers with greater control and
flexibility over setting their risk tolerance and more protection over
risk exposure, if the market moves in an unexpected direction. The
Exchange believes the proposal would provide market participants with
additional protection from erroneous executions. The proposal is
structured to offer the same enhancement to all dealers, regardless of
size, and would not impose a competitive burden on any participant. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed enhancement to the existing
risk limitation mechanism would impose a burden on competing options
exchanges. Rather, the availability of this mechanism may foster more
competition. Specifically, the Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues. When an exchange offers enhanced functionality
that distinguishes it from the competition and participants find it
useful, it has been the Exchange's experience that competing exchanges
will move to adopt similar functionality. Thus, the Exchange believes
that this type of competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the
market place as a whole as it can result in enhanced processes,
functionality, and technologies.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\25\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \26\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEMKT-2013-106 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-106. 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 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; 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-NYSEMKT-2013-106 and should
be submitted on or before February 3, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00337 Filed 1-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11538-11539]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0224; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-188-AD;
Amendment 39-15400; AD 2008-05-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -
400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This
AD requires repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking in the
longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord located at
certain body stations, and repair if necessary. This AD results from
several reports of cracks in the center wing box longitudinal floor
beams, upper chord, and lower chord. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and lower chords and web of
the longitudinal floor beams, which could result in rapid loss of cabin
pressure.

DATES: This AD is effective April 8, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 8,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
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 address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6440; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November
26, 2007 (72 FR 65911). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive
inspections for fatigue cracking in the longitudinal floor beam web,
upper chord, and lower chord located at certain body stations, and
repair if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received. Boeing, the single
commenter, supports the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are 2,852 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide
fleet. This AD affects 652 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required
inspection takes approximately 13 work hours per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the required inspection for U.S. operators is
$678,080, or $1,040 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

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

    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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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:

2008-05-06 Boeing: Amendment 39-15400. Docket No. FAA-2007-0224;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-188-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 8,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400,
and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13,
2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from several reports of cracks in the center
wing box longitudinal floor beams, upper chord, and lower chord. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the
upper and lower chords and web of the longitudinal floor beams,
which could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Repetitive Inspections

    (f) Do the various inspections for fatigue cracks in the
longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord, located
at the applicable body stations specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13,
2007, by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin, except as provided by
paragraph (g) of this AD. Do the inspections at the time specified
in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes as identified in the service
bulletin: Do the inspections at the applicable initial compliance
time listed in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the service
bulletin; except, where the service bulletin specifies a compliance
time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the intervals
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the service
bulletin.
    (2) For Group 3 airplanes as identified in the service bulletin:
Do the inspections at the applicable initial compliance time listed
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin; except,
where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the
date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
Repeat the inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin.
    (g) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this
AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007,
specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions: Before further
flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June
13, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-3810 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 61689]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25630]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2280-013; Seneca Nation of Indians]

FirstEnergy Generation Corporation Project No. 13889-000

Notice of Site Visit

    On November 24, 2010, FirstEnergy, the current licensee, filed a
notice of intent (NOI) and a pre-application document (PAD) for a
license to continue to operate the Kinzua Pumped Storage Project No.
2280-013. On November 30, 2010, the Seneca Nation of Indians filed a
competing NOI and PAD for a license for the Seneca Pumped Storage
Project No. 13889-000. Both FirstEnergy and the Seneca Nation plan to
use the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The project is located at
the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Kinzua Dam, and to the
United States Forest Service Allegheny National Forest, adjacent to the
Allegheny River and the Allegheny Reservoir near the City of Warren, in
Warren County, Pennsylvania. The project occupies 221.59 acres of
federal lands.
    On January 28, 2011, the Commission issued a Scoping Document
containing a description of the existing project and proposed project
facilities and mode of operation, a preliminary list of issues to be
addressed in the Commission's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental document, and a request for information and written
comments.
    On October 25, 2011, at 9 a.m. (E.D.T.), as part of the NEPA
scoping process, Commission staff will hold a site visit at the Kinzua
Pumped Storage Project--Seneca Pumped Storage Project. All participants
interested in attending the site visit should meet at the Kinzua Dam
Information Center parking lot in Warren, Pennsylvania. The information
center is located below Kinzua Dam adjacent to the Allegheny River. All
participants attending the site visit should be prepared to provide
their own transportation. If you have any question please contact
Gaylord Hoisington at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 28, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25630 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             Washington, DC  20460

									OFFICE OF
									AIR AND RADIATION

July 12, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Summary of Computational Fluid Dynamic simulation results provided by CD-Adapco

FROM:	Arvon Mitcham, Mechanical Engineer, and Sam Waltzer, Environmental Engineer.

TO:	Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum provides for docket the technical information and data resulting from computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations to support the rulemaking Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (EPA 420-F-10-038).  These simulations were conducted using the geometry provided by EPA created from the scan of a long-haul, sleeper cab tractor as well as a standard 53 foot box trailer.  The scanning of the tractor and trailer was conducted by Southwest Research Institute under EPA contract and is detailed in a separate report.  The CD-Adapco simulations were run using their STAR CCM+ software and their best practices.  The frontal area used in the calculation of a coefficient of drag is 10.7699.  The attachment is summary of the results provided to EPA via email from Fred Ross, CD-Adapco.

                                 Attachment 1

                                     Case
                                  Description
                                      -9
                                      -6
                                      -3
                                       0
                                       3
                                       6
                                       9
                                      101
                                   Baseline
                                     0.580
                                     0.503
                                     0.452
                                     0.422
                                     0.453
                                     0.514
                                     0.589
                                      102
                                  No Fairings
                                     0.630
                                     0.540
                                     0.472
                                     0.439
                                     0.478
                                     0.558
                                     0.644
                                      103
                                 Bell Fairing
                                     0.622
                                     0.534
                                     0.472
                                     0.438
                                     0.475
                                     0.551
                                     0.632
                                      104
                               Underbody Fairing
                                     0.588
                                     0.509
                                     0.454
                                     0.424
                                     0.460
                                     0.523
                                     0.598

Baseline has both front fairing, and underbody fairings on. Case 102 removes both, 103 just has the fairings on the front, and 104 just below the trailer.

I did find some leakage into the front tires, since the hub of the tire was open. I just closed that, and added some refinement to the trim of the trailer. I don't expect major trend changes, but it might shift the data slightly. The trailer landing gear is in the down position. I don't see this as a major issue. The mud-flaps pretty much go to the ground, blocking the flow to the truck supports.

The Bell Fairing may not be having a large impact due to the CAB design, and possibly the open, or missing CAD between CAB and trailer. But I can certainly compare more images to see where the differences are in the flow field.


[Federal Register: March 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9518-9520]
[DOCID:fr02mr07-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

February 26, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-4102-005.
    Applicants: Milford Power, LLC.
    Description: Milford Power, LLC submits a supplement to its 1/31/07
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 02/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070221-0037
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 9, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-1952-004; ER04-1208-002; ER03-802-004; ER01-
1784-007; ER99-1248-006; ER03-222-006.
    Applicants: Black Hills Colorado, LLC; Black Hills Power, Inc.;
Black Hill Wyoming, Inc.; Fountain Valley Power, LLC; Harbor
Cogeneration Company, LLC; Las Vegas Cogeneration II, LLC.
    Description: Black Hills Corporation on behalf of Black Hills
Utilities submits amendments to its market-based rate wholesale power
sales rate schedules, Order 652.
    Filed Date: 02/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-2268-022; EL05-10-000; ER99-4124-018; EL05-11-
000; ER00-3312-018; EL05-12-000; ER99-4122-022; EL-5-13-000.
    Applicants: Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Arizona Public
Service Company; Pinnacle West Energy Corporation; APS Energy Services,
Inc.

    Description: Pinnacle West Companies, et al. submit revised
simultaneous, import limit studies and delivered price tests to support
their request for market-based authority in the APS control area,
pursuant to FERC's 12/21/06 Order.
    Filed Date: 02/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070222-0226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-1165-002.
    Applicants: Energy Cooperative Association of Pennsylvania.
    Description: Energy Cooperative Association of Pennsylvania submits
its request for acceptance of their FERC Electric Tariff, Original,
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 02/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070222-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1410-004; EL05-148-004.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to its PJM
OATT and the Reliability Assurance Agreement among Load-Serving
Entities in the PJM Region pursuant to FERC's 12/22/06 Order.
    Filed Date: 02/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070222-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-432-006.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits its revised tariff
language to accommodate the inclusion of the credit policy pursuant to
FERC's 1/17/07 Order.
    Filed Date: 02/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070221-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 9, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1485-001; ER1485-003; ER07-266-001.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Southwestern Public Service Co submits revised version
of Schedule 4A-Reserve Sharing Energy Charges, to its OATT, FERC
Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 02/23/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070226-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 16, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-61-001.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc, agent for Alabama
Power Co et al submits modifications to the materials included in its
10/24/06, submission of Revision 2-Agreement for Network Integration,
Service etc, w/US Department of Energy.
    Filed Date: 02/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-99-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits the
Report of Operating Reserves Cost Allocation Adjustments for the period
of 3/1/05 through 10/24/06.
    Filed Date: 02/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-361-001.
    Applicants: Ameren Energy Marketing Company; Central Illinois Light
Company; Central Illinois Public Service Company; Illinois Power
Company; Union Electric Company.
    Description: Central Illinois Light Co dba AmerenCILCO et al
submits an amendment to their 12/22/06 application proposed to amend
their market based rate tariffs to permit certain affiliate power sales
transactions.
    Filed Date: 02/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 9, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-486-001.
    Applicants: Saguaro Power Company, a Ltd. Partnership.
    Description: Saguaro Power Co submits a Substitute Original Sheet 1
et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 02/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070222-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-531-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a corrected version
of its Wholesale Market Participation Agreement that addresses the
typographical errors in the 2/9/07 filing.
    Filed Date: 02/22/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0307.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-552-000.
    Applicants: Hudson Bay Energy Solutions LLC.
    Description: Hudson Bay Energy Solutions, LLC submits an
application for order accepting initial market-based rate tariff,
waiving regulations, and granting blanket approvals etc, effective 3/
30/07.
    Filed Date: 02/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070221-0039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 09, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-553-000; ER07-554-000; ER07-555-000; ER07-556-
000; ER07-557-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1 LLC; Emera
Energy Services Subsidiary No. 2 LLC; Emera Energy Services Subsidiary
No. 3 LLC; Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 4 LLC; Emera Energy
Services Subsidiary No. 5 LLC.
    Description: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary 1, LLC et al submits
a petition for acceptance of initial tariff waivers and blanket
authority.
    Filed Date: 02/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070222-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-558-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits the Facilities Agreement dated 2/1/
07 with Flowell Electric Association.
    Filed Date: 02/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-559-000.
    Applicants: Flat Earth Energy.
    Description: Flat Earth Energy, LLC submits a petition for
acceptance of initial rate tariff waivers and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 02/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-560-000.
    Applicants: KGEN Enterprise LLC.
    Description: KGen Power Management Inc submits a Notice of
Cancellation of Rate Schedule and a Second Revised Sheet 1 to its
market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 02/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-561-000.
    Applicants: KGen Marshall LLC.
    Description: KGen Power Management Inc submits a Notice of
Cancellation of Rate Schedule and a Second Revised Sheet 1 to KGen
Marshall LLC's market-based rate tariff
    Filed Date: 02/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 14, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-562-000.
    Applicants: Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company.
    Description: Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co submits tariff
sheets

Exhibit TRC-201 for inclusion in their Open Access Transmission Tariff
pursuant to FERC's Orders 679 and 679-A, effective 6/1/07.
    Filed Date: 02/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070223-0015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 14, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings.

    Docket Numbers: ES07-21-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC.
    Description: Application of Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC for
Authorization to Issue Securities under ES07-21.
    Filed Date: 02/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070220-5019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 13, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3714 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75060-75061]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0049; OMB No. 1660-0006]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National Flood Insurance Program Policy Forms

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on an extension, with change, of a currently approved
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning information collected
for the selling and servicing of National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) policies by FEMA's direct servicing agent, NFIP Direct.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit
comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2022-0049. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Act Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joycelyn Collins, Underwriting Branch
Program Analyst, Federal Insurance Directorate, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. You may contact the Information
Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP is authorized by Public Law 90-448

(1968) and expanded by Public Law 93-234 (1973). The National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 requires FEMA to provide flood insurance at full
actuarial rates, reflecting the complete flood risk to structures built
or substantially improved, on or after the effective date for the
initial Flood Insurance Rate Map for the community, so that the risks
associated with buildings in flood-prone areas are borne by those
located in such areas and not by taxpayers at large. In accordance with
Public Law 93-234, the purchase of flood insurance is mandatory when
Federal or federally related financial assistance is being provided for
acquisition or construction of buildings located, or to be located,
within FEMA-identified special flood hazard areas of communities that
participate in the NFIP.
    FEMA also proposes changes to this information collection to
implement a revised risk rating methodology that will apply to all
policies issued or renewed on or after October 1, 2021. This revised
methodology will require FEMA to collect new information necessary to
sell and service flood insurance policies. However, the revised
methodology is not expected to increase the overall information
collection burden on the public due to the use of data from sources
other than policyholders. As a result of this revised methodology, FEMA
proposes to modify FEMA Forms FF-206-FY-21-117 (formerly 086-0-1), FF-
206-FY-21-118 (formerly 086-0-2), and FF-206-FY-21-119 (formerly 086-0-
3).
    During the transition to the revised rating methodology, FEMA still
needed to maintain the existing forms in this information collection.
As a result, FEMA added FEMA Forms 086-0-1T, 086-0-2T, 086-0-3T, and
086-0-5T to this information collection. Now that the transition to the
revised risk rating methodology has been completed, effective April 1,
2022, FEMA has discontinued the use of these forms and is removing them
from this information collection.

Collection of Information

    Title: National Flood Insurance Program Policy Forms.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, with change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0006
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-117 (formerly 086-0-1), Flood
Insurance Application; FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-118 (formerly 086-0-2),
Flood Insurance Cancellation/Nullification Request Form; and FEMA Form
FF-206-FY-21-119 (formerly 086-0-3), Flood Insurance General Change
Endorsement.
    Abstract: To provide for the availability of policies for flood
insurance, policies are marketed and administered through the
facilities of licensed insurance agents or brokers in the various
States. Applications, general change requests, and cancellations from
agents or brokers are forwarded to a direct servicing agent designated
as fiscal agent by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
(FIMA), referred to as NFIP Direct. Upon receipt and examination of the
application, general change request, cancellation, and required
premium, the servicing company issues or updates the appropriate
Federal flood insurance policy.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; State, local or Tribal
Government; Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions;
and Farms.
    Number of Respondents: 372,522.
    Number of Responses: 372,522.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 51,628.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $2,096,612.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $9,356,922.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to: (a) evaluate whether the proposed
data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through 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.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-26571 Filed 12-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P