[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29121-29127]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12148]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74969; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-042]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Regarding Limitation of Liability

May 14, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 5, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rule 6.7 governing Exchange
liability and payments to Trading Permit Holders in connection with
certain types of losses that Trading Permit Holders may allege arose
out of business conducted on or through the Exchange or in connection
with the use of the Exchange's facilities. The Exchange also proposes
conforming changes to Rules 2.24 and 6.7A, and the elimination of Rule
7.11. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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
    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 6.7 to eliminate any implication of
liability with respect to the Exchange and its subsidiaries or
affiliates, or any of their directors, officers, committee members,
other officials, employees, contractors, or agents, (including the
Exchange, collectively, ``Covered Persons'') for losses arising out of
the use or enjoyment of Exchange facilities. The proposed rule change
is consistent with and supplements existing law, and would ensure that
self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') can operate within the sphere
of their regulatory duties without fear of endless, costly litigation
and potential catastrophic loss.\5\ As discussed below, the proposed
rule change is also consistent with the rules of other exchanges
limiting exchange liability (see, e.g., EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'')
Rule 11.14, BOX Options Exchange, LLC (``BOX'') Rule 7230,
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') Rule 705, and New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') Rule 18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Courts have recognized the importance of protecting
exchanges from such loss in deciding that SROs must be absolutely
immune from civil actions for losses arising out of the SRO
function. See Dexter v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 406 F.
Supp. 2d 260, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (absolute immunity possessed by
SROs ``is an integral part of the American system of self-
regulation''), aff'd 219 F. App'x 91 (2d Cir. 2007). Without such
protection, an SRO's ``exercise of its quasi-governmental functions
would be unduly hampered by disruptive and recriminatory lawsuits.''
D'Alessio v. NYSE, 258 F.3d 93, 105 (2d Cir. 2001). It is critical
that SROs, which stand in the shoes of the SEC in performing their
quasi-governmental regulatory function, be free from ``the fear of
burdensome damage suits that would inhibit the exercise of their
independent judgment.'' Dexter, 406 F.Supp. 2d at 263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CBOE's proposal, although the Exchange would not be liable
for losses, it would have the discretion to compensate Trading Permit
Holders for losses alleged to have resulted from the Exchange's failure
to correctly process an order or quote due to the acts or omissions of
the Exchange or due to the failure of its systems or facilities (each,
a ``Loss Event''), up to specified limits. The proposed rule change
would also establish timeframes within which Trading Permit Holders
would be required to bring requests for compensation (and provide
supporting documentation), provide factors the Exchange may consider in
determining whether to provide compensation in response to such
requests, and establish that the Exchange's determinations on
compensation are final and not appealable. The proposed rule change
would also provide that claims arising under a previous version of Rule
6.7 for losses occurring more than one year prior July 1, 2015 (the
``Effective Date'') would not be considered valid, and that claims for
any losses occurring prior to the Effective Date must be brought within
one month of the Effective Date to be considered valid. Specific
changes to Exchange Rules are discussed below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that Rule 6.7 is cross-referenced in
several places throughout the Exchange Rules including, for example,
in Rules 20.5, Limitation of Liability of Exchange and of Reporting
Authority, 22.5, Limitation of Liability of Exchange and of
Reporting Authority, and 50.6, Liability and Legal Proceedings, as
well as Appendix A of Chapters XLVII-XLIX and Appendix A of Chapters
L-LIV, and generally as part of the Chapter VI cross-references
contained in the Introductions to Chapters XX-XXIX. The Exchange
also notes that, in accordance with Rule 50.6, the provisions of
Rules 2.24, 6.7, and 6.7A apply to the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC
(``CBSX,'' CBOE's stock execution facility) to the same extent that
they apply to CBOE and references in those rules to the Exchange are
also deemed to be references to CBSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment to Rule Title
    The proposed rule change would change the title of Rule 6.7 from
``Exchange Liability'' to ``Exchange Liability Disclaimers and
Limitations.'' The proposed amendment to the Rule title would clarify
that the Rule does not impose liability on the Exchange, but rather
disclaims Exchange liability for any losses that arise out of the use
or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange, any
interruption in or failure or unavailability of any such facilities, or
any action taken or omitted to be taken in respect to the business of
the Exchange, the calculation or dissemination of specified values, or
quotes or transaction reports for options or other securities (the
``General Disclaimer'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Cross-references to Rule 6.7 contained in Appendix A of
Chapters XLVII-XLIX and Appendix A of Chapters L-LIV are also
proposed to be updated to reflect the new title. In addition
Appendix A of Chapters L-LIV is proposed to be updated to delete an
unnecessary reference to Rule 24.4 and to include a cross-reference
to Rule 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Scope of General Disclaimer
    Proposed amendments to Rule 6.7(a) would clarify that
``contractors'' are included within the term ``Covered Persons,'' and
are therefore included within the General Disclaimer. This proposed
change is needed because the Exchange at times contracts with outside
firms to provide products and services to the Exchange for use by
Trading Permit Holders in connection with regulated business conducted
on or through the Exchange and that arise out of the use or enjoyment
of the facilities afforded by the Exchange and/or the calculation or
dissemination of specified values, or quotes or transaction reports for
options or other securities. The Exchange notes that this proposed rule
change is consistent with the exclusion from liability for contractors
found in EDGA Rule 11.14, BOX Rule 7230 and ISE Rule 705. Proposed
amendments to Rule 6.7(a) would also clarify that ``other officials''
of the Exchange or ``any subsidiaries or affiliates of the Exchange''
are included within the term ``Covered Persons,'' and are therefore
included within the General Disclaimer. We note that this proposed rule
change to include other officials and subsidiaries is consistent with
the existing provisions of Rule 6.7A.\8\ The term ``Covered Persons''

would also include such subsidiaries' and affiliates' directors,
officers, committee members, other officials, employees, contractors,
or agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Exchange Rule 6.7A currently limits the rights of any
Trading Permit Holder or any person associated with a Trading Permit
Holder to institute a lawsuit or other legal proceeding against the
Exchange or any director, officer, employee, agent or contractor, or
other official of the Exchange, or any subsidiary of the Exchange,
for any actions taken or omitted to be taken in connection with the
official business of the Exchange or any subsidiary, except to the
extent such actions or omissions constitute violations of the
federal securities laws for which a private right of action exist.
The rule also permits appeals of Exchange disciplinary actions as
provided in Exchange Rule. Proposed amendments to Rule 6.7A
(discussed below) would clarify that this limitation applies to
committee members and affiliates of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also clarify that implicit in the
General Disclaimer is the Exchange's disclaimer of any warranties,
express or implied, with respect to the use or enjoyment of facilities
afforded by the Exchange, including without limitation, of any data
provided by the Exchange. The current language of the rule states that
the Exchange does not warrant ``the use of any data transmitted or
disseminated by or on behalf of the Exchange or any reporting authority
designated by the Exchange, including but not limited to reports of
transactions in or quotations for securities traded on the Exchange or
underlying securities, or reports of interest rate measures or index
values or related data.'' Under the proposed rule change, the Exchange
would make explicit that the General Disclaimer is intended to contain
within it a disclaimer of any warranties as to the use or enjoyment of
the facilities offered by the Exchange. The proposed rule change would
thereby clarify that such use or enjoyment of Exchange facilities by
Trading Permit Holders is provided ``as is,'' without specific
warranties of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose.
For the avoidance of doubt, the explicit list of the types of data for
which the Exchange disclaims any warranties would also include, without
limitation, ``any current or closing index value, any current or
closing value of interest rate options, or any report of transactions
in or quotations for options or other securities, including underlying
securities.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange also proposes to replace the phrase
``facilities or services'' with simply ``facilities'' in two
locations within the existing text of Rule 6.7(a). The Exchange
believes use of the term ``services'' is duplicative of the term
``facilities'' and is therefore unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also clarify that all limitations on
liability and disclaimers within paragraph (a) of Rule 6.7 are in
addition to, and not in limitation of, any limitations on liability
otherwise existing under law. This proposed rule change is intended to
ensure that the protection of Rule 6.7 does not circumscribe
protections that otherwise would exist under the principles of law.\10\
This and other limitations on liability operate independently from, and
in addition to, both the current and proposed amended versions of Rule
6.7 and CBOE's other rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, as CBOE is organized under Delaware law, the
principals of Delaware law also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Limits on Discretionary Payments for Alleged Losses
    Currently, Rule 6.7(b) provides that whenever custody of an
unexecuted order is transmitted by a Trading Permit Holder to or
through the Exchange's systems or to any other automated facility of
the Exchange whereby the Exchange assumes responsibility for the
transmission or execution of the order, and provided that the Exchange
has acknowledged receipt of such order, the Exchange's liability for
the negligent acts or omissions of its employees or for the failure of
its systems or facilities shall not exceed certain limits set forth in
Rule 6.7(b). The Exchange first proposes to provide that Rule 6.42(b)
applies to quotes as well as unexecuted orders. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the word ``automated'' from ``automated
facility of the Exchange'', as not all facilities of the Exchange may
be considered automated and the Exchange did not intend to restrict the
scope of rule as such. The Exchange also seeks to amend Rule 6.7(b) to
explicitly provide that, although the Exchange would not be liable with
respect to regulated Exchange business for losses that arise out of the
use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange and/or the
calculation or dissemination of specified values, or quotes or
transaction reports for options or other securities, as provided in
Rule 6.7(a),\11\ the Exchange may make discretionary payments to
Trading Permit Holders for certain losses alleged to have occurred due
to Loss Events. Specifically, the proposed rule change would permit the
Exchange to make discretionary payments to Trading Permit Holders for
their losses alleged to have resulted from Loss Events up to the
following limits. As to any one or more requests for compensation made
by a single Trading Permit Holder that arose out of one or more Loss
Events occurring on a single trading day, the Exchange could compensate
the Trading Permit Holder up to but not exceeding the larger of
$100,000 or the amount of any recovery obtained by the Exchange under
applicable insurance maintained by the Exchange. As to the aggregate of
all requests for compensation made by all Trading Permit Holders that
arose out of one or more Loss Events occurring: (i) On a single trading
day, the Exchange could compensate the Trading Permit Holders, in the
aggregate, up to but not exceeding the larger of $250,000 or the amount
of recovery obtained by the Exchange under any applicable insurance
policy; and (ii) during a single calendar month, the Exchange could
compensate the Trading Permit Holders, in the aggregate, up to but not
exceeding the larger of $500,000 or the amount of the recovery obtained
by the Exchange under any applicable insurance maintained by the
Exchange. The proposed rule change would also state that no request for
compensation by a Trading Permit Holder may be in an amount less than
$100. Losses incurred on the same trading day and arising out of the
same underlying act or omission of the Exchange or failure of the
Exchange's systems or facilities may be aggregated to meet the $100
minimum.\12\

This is intended as a de minimis threshold to avoid requiring the
Exchange to devote the resources to considering relatively small
requests for payment. The proposed rule change also would state that
nothing in Rule 6.7 would obligate the Exchange to seek recovery under
any applicable insurance policy. The proposed changes to Rule 6.7(b)
would therefore, consistent with Rule 6.7(a), permit the Exchange to
make discretionary payments to Trading Permit Holders to compensate
them for such losses, up to specified limits, even though the Exchange
would not be legally liable to pay for such losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Specifically, Rule 6.7(a), as proposed to be amended, would
provide as follows:
     Neither the Exchange nor any of its directors, officers,
committee members, other officials, employees, contractors, or
agents, nor any subsidiaries or affiliates of the Exchange or any of
their directors, officers, committee members, other officials,
employees, contractors, or agents (``Covered Persons'') shall be
liable to the Trading Permit Holders or to persons associated
therewith for any loss, expense, damages or claims that arise out of
the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange, any
interruption in or failure or unavailability of any such facilities,
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in respect to the
business of the Exchange except to the extent such loss, expense,
damages or claims are attributable to the willful misconduct, gross
negligence, bad faith or fraudulent or criminal acts of the Exchange
or its officers, employees or agents acting within the scope of
their authority. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
and subject to the same exception, no Covered Person shall have any
liability to any person or entity for any loss, expense, damages or
claims that result from any error, omission or delay in calculating
or disseminating any current or closing index value, any current or
closing value of interest rate options, or any reports of
transactions in or quotations for options or other securities,
including underlying securities. The Exchange makes no warranty,
express or implied, as to results to be obtained by any person or
entity from the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the
Exchange, including without limitation, of any data transmitted or
disseminated by or on behalf of the Exchange or any reporting
authority designated by the Exchange, including but not limited to
any data described in the preceding sentence, and the Exchange makes
no express or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a
particular purpose or use with respect to any such data. The
foregoing limitations of liability and disclaimers shall be in
addition to, and not in limitation of, the provisions of Article
Eighth of the Exchange's Certificate of Incorporation or any
limitations otherwise available under law.
    \12\ For example, if a TPH incurs a loss of $30 on one day due
to a certain glitch in the Exchange's systems and a loss of $75 on
the same day due to a separate unrelated glitch in the Exchange's
systems, the TPH could not request compensation for either loss.
However, if for example, the TPH incurs a loss of $105 on one day
due to a certain glitch in the Exchange's system, the TPH may
request compensation. In this second example, the TPH may request
compensation even if such losses were incurred over a number of
different transactions so long as it was the result of the same
systems issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timeframes Within Which To Notify Exchange and Submit Requests
    Proposed new Rule 6.7(c) would establish timeframes within which a
valid request for compensation must be brought under the Rule. Under
the proposed rule change, notice of all requests would be required to
be in writing and to be submitted to the Exchange no later than 12:00
p.m. Central Time on the next business day following the Loss Event
giving rise to such request. All requests would be required to be in
writing and to be submitted, along with supporting documentation, by
5:00 p.m. Central Time on the third business day following the Loss
Event giving rise to each such request.\13\ Additional information
related to the request as demanded by the Exchange is also required to
be provided. The proposed rule change would also specify that the
Exchange would not consider requests for which timely notice and
submission had not been provided as required under amended Rule 6.7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Other exchanges have similar submission requirements. See,
e.g., NYSE Rule 18--Compensation in Relation to Exchange System
Failure, which provides in relevant part that NYSE members provide
oral notice to NYSE's Division of Floor Operations by the market
opening on the next business day following the system failure and
written notice by the end of the third business day following the
system failure (T+3). See also, ISE Rule 705(d)(3)--Limitation of
Liability, which provides that all claims for compensation must be
made in writing and submitted no later than the opening of trading
on the next business day following the event that gave rise to such
claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed provisions of new Rule 6.7(c) would benefit Trading
Permit Holders by providing them with clear timeframes within which to
submit notices of requests, requests for compensation, and supporting
documentation. The proposed changes would also provide the Exchange
with certainty as to the deadlines by which notices of requests and
completed requests would be required to be submitted in order for the
Exchange to consider them for compensation under Rule 6.7.
Exchange Treatment of Aggregate Requests Exceeding Maximum Amount
Permitted To Be Paid
    Currently, Rule 6.7(c) provides that if all of the claims cannot be
fully satisfied because in the aggregate they exceed the applicable
maximum amount of liability provided for in paragraph (b) [of Rule 6.7]
[sic], then such maximum amount would be allocated among all such
claims arising on a single trading day or during a single calendar
month, as applicable, written notice of which has been given to the
Exchange no later than the opening of trading on the next business day
following the day on which the use or enjoyment of Exchange facilities
giving rise to the claim occurred, based upon the proportion that each
claim bears to the sum of all such claims. The Exchange proposes to
amend existing Rule 6.7(c), which would be renumbered to Rule 6.7(d),
to state that, ``if all of the timely requests submitted pursuant to
paragraph (c) [of Rule 6.7] that are granted cannot be fully satisfied
because in the aggregate they exceed the applicable maximum amount of
payments authorized in paragraph (b) [of Rule 6.7], then such maximum
amount shall be allocated among all such requests arising on a single
trading day or during a single calendar month, as applicable, based
upon the proportion that each such request bears to the sum of all such
requests.''
    The Exchange notes that it is proposing to replace the term
``claim'' with the term ``request'', as well as replace the reference
to ``liability'' with ``payments authorized'' to eliminate any
implication of liability with respect to the Exchange and other Covered
Person resulting from the use or enjoyment of the facilities offered by
the Exchange, any interruption in or failure or unavailability or any
such facilities, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in respect
of the business of the Exchange.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes that proposed Rule 6.7(d) would
continue to provide a fair way of allocating the limited payment that
the rule would permit the Exchange to make when the total amount of
eligible requests exceed that maximum amount. The proposal would also
revise the timeframe in which requests for payment must be made by a
Trading Permit Holder.
Exchange Review of Timely Requests
    Proposed new Rule 6.7(e) would provide that the Exchange, in
determining whether to make payment in response to a request for
compensation, may determine whether the amount requested should be
reduced based on the actions or inactions of the requesting Trading
Permit Holder. The proposed rule change would permit the Exchange to
consider, without limitation, whether the actions or inactions of the
Trading Permit Holder contributed to the Loss Event; whether the
Trading Permit Holder made appropriate efforts to mitigate its loss;
whether the Trading Permit Holder realized any gains as a result of a
Loss Event; whether the losses of the Trading Permit Holder, if any,
were offset by hedges of positions either on the Exchange or on another
affiliated or unaffiliated market; and whether the Trading Permit
Holder provided sufficient information to document the request and as
demanded by the Exchange. Proposed Rule 6.7(e) would therefore provide
reasonable factors that the Exchange may consider in determining
whether to pay compensation in response to a request and in determining
the amount of any such compensation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Another exchange considered similar factors in determining
whether to pay compensation and in determining the amount of any
such compensation. See NYSE Rule 18, which provides in relevant part
that the NYSE Compensation Review Panel in its review will determine
whether the amount should be reduced based on the actions or
inactions of the member organization, including whether the member
organization made appropriate efforts to mitigate its loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the determination to compensate a
Trading Permit Holder will be made on an equitable and non-
discriminatory basis and without regard to the Exchange capacity of the
Trading Permit Holder (including whether the Trading Permit Holder is a
Designated Primary Market-Maker). Additionally, the Exchange represents
that the Exchange will maintain a record of Trading Permit Holder
requests including documentation detailing the Exchange's findings and
details for approving or denying requests in accordance with its
obligations under Section 17 of the Act.
Finality of Exchange Determinations Under Rule
    Proposed new Rule 6.7(f) would provide that all determinations by
the Exchange pursuant to Rule 6.7 shall be final and not subject to
appeal under

Chapter XIX of the Exchange Rules.\15\ The proposed rule would also
provide that nothing in Rule 6.7, nor any payment made pursuant to Rule
6.7, shall in any way limit, waive or proscribe any defenses a Covered
Person may have to any claim, demand, liability, action or cause of
action, whether such defense arises in law or equity, or whether such
defense is asserted in a judicial, administrative, or other
proceeding.\16\ These proposed changes are consistent with the
discretionary nature of any payments that would be made under proposed
Rule 6.7(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that another exchange has a similar
provision indicating that all determinations are final. See, NYSE
Rule 18, which provides in relevant part that all determinations
made pursuant to NYSE Rule 18 by NYSE's Compensation Review Panel,
CEO or his or her designee are final.
    \16\ Another exchange has a similar provision. See e.g., Nasdaq
Rule 4626(b)(6), which provides that nothing in its Limitation of
Liability rule shall waive Nasdaq's limitations on, or immunities
from, liability as set forth in its Rules or agreements, or that
otherwise apply as a matter of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment of Losses Occurring Prior to Effective Date of Rule
    Proposed new paragraph 6.7(g) would establish July 1, 2015 as the
Effective Date of revised Rule 6.7. Under proposed paragraph 6.7(g),
claims for liability under prior versions of Rule 6.7 would not be
considered valid if brought with respect to any acts, omissions or
transactions occurring more than one year prior to the Effective Date,
or if brought more than one month after the Effective Date. Proposed
Rule 6.7(g) would thereby provide certainty to the Exchange as to any
expense it might incur due to Loss Events that occurred prior to the
Effective Date of the proposed rule change, while also putting Trading
Permit Holders on notice that they must file any claims for such losses
by a date certain.
Deletion of Existing Interpretations Under Rule 6.7
    The proposed rule change would delete existing Interpretations
.01-.04 under Rule 6.7. Interpretation .01 states that Rule 7.11
governs the liability of the Exchange for claims arising out of the
errors or omissions of an Order Book Official or his or her assistants
or clerks or a PAR Official or his or her assistants or clerks. Under
the proposed rule change, Rule 7.11 (as well as cross-references to
Rule 7.11) \17\ would be eliminated, making the interpretation
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Specifically, Rules 6.7, 7.12 and 21.18 are proposed to be
amended to delete cross-references to Rule 7.11. In addition, the
Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 21.18 to delete an outdated
reference to Board Brokers, a floor function that no longer exists
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interpretation .02 is reserved and would therefore be deleted.
Interpretation .03 states that the provision of Exchange liability in
paragraph (b) of current Rule 6.7 for certain orders routed through the
Exchange's Order Routing System or E-Book shall not apply. Because the
proposed rule change would eliminate Exchange liability under paragraph
(b), the interpretation would no longer be necessary.
    Interpretation .04 disclaims The Options Clearing Corporation
liability to Trading Permit Holders and their associated persons with
respect to their use, non-use or inability to use the linkage that was
part of the old Options Intermarket Linkage Plan (the ``Old Linkage'').
Because the Old Linkage is no longer operable, interpretation .04 is no
longer necessary.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The old Options Intermarket Linkage Plan was replaced by
the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan in
2009. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60405 (July 30, 2009),
74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conforming Changes to Other Rules
    The proposed rule change would make conforming changes to Exchange
Rules 2.24 and 6.7A. Rule 2.24 requires a Trading Permit Holder who
fails to prevail in a lawsuit or other legal proceeding instituted
against the Exchange or certain related parties to pay for the
Exchange's reasonable costs of defending such lawsuit or proceeding if
those costs exceed $50,000. Rule 6.7A limits the legal proceedings a
Trading Permit Holder may bring against the Exchange and certain
related persons for actions or omissions.
    Under the proposed amendments to Rules 2.24, contractors would be
included within the list of related parties protected by that rule,
just as they would be included as Covered Persons under proposed Rule
6.7. As stated above, this proposed change is necessary because the
Exchange at times contracts with outside firms to provide products or
services to Trading Permit Holders in connection with regulated
business conducted on or through the Exchange and that arise out of the
use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange and/or the
calculation or dissemination of specified values, or quotes or
transaction reports for options or other securities.
    In addition, under the proposed amendments to Rule 2.24, other
officials and contractors of the Exchange and any subsidiaries and
affiliates of the Exchange and any such subsidiaries' and affiliates'
directors, officers, committee members, other officials, employees,
contractors, or agents would be explicitly identified/included within
the list of related parties protected by the rule,\19\ just as they are
proposed to be specifically identified/included within the list of
Covered Persons under Rule 6.7. Committee members and affiliates of the
Exchange and any subsidiaries' and affiliates' directors, officers,
committee members, other officials, employees, contractors and agents
would also be explicitly identified/included within the list of related
parties under Rule 6.7A.\20\ These changes are intended to conform the
text of the three rules and to include affiliates within all three
rules.\21\ Moreover, under the proposed amendments to Rule 6.7A,
committee members would be explicitly identified/included within the
list of related parties protected by the rule, just as they are already
specifically identified/included within the list of Covered Persons
under existing Rule 6.7 and the similar provision in Rule 2.24. This is
also intended to conform the text of the three rules. Finally, under
the proposed amendments to Rule 6.7A, the title to the rule will be
revised.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Specifically, the phrase ``the Exchange or any of its
directors, officers, committee members, employees or agents'' is
proposed to be replaced with the phrase ``the Exchange or any of its
directors, officers, committee members, other officials, employees,
contractors, or agents, or any subsidiaries or affiliates of the
Exchange or any of their directors, officers, committee members,
other officials, employees, contractors, or agents'' in Rule 2.24.
    \20\ Specifically, the phrase ``the Exchange or any director,
officer, employee, contractor, agent or other official of the
Exchange or any subsidiary of the Exchange'' is proposed to be
replaced with the phrase ``the Exchange or any of its directors,
officers, committee members, other officials, employees,
contractors, or agents, or any subsidiaries or affiliates of the
Exchange or any of their directors, officers, committee members,
other officials, employees, contractors, or agents'' in Rule 6.7A.
    \21\ The Commission notes CBOE's statement of the purpose of its
proposed rule change is to eliminate any implication of liability
for losses arising out of the use or enjoyment of Exchange
facilities consistent with existing law where courts have recognized
the importance of protecting exchanges from liability in the context
of matters arising out of the SRO function. See supra note 5 and
accompanying text.
    \22\ Specifically, the title ``Legal Proceedings Against the
Exchange and its Directors, Officers, Employees, Contractors or
Agents'' is proposed to be changed to simply ``Legal Proceedings
Against the Exchange.'' Cross-references to Rule 6.7A contained in
Appendix A of Chapters XLVII-XLIX and Appendix A of Chapters L-LIV
Appendix A are also proposed to be updated to reflect the new title.
Additionally, cross-references to Rule 2.24 contained in Appendix A
of Chapters XLVII-XLIX and Appendix A of Chapters L-LIV Appendix A
are proposed to be updated to include consistent capitalization of
words in the Rule's title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also delete Rule 7.11 in its
entirety. Rule

7.11 currently governs the liability of the Exchange relating to losses
resulting from the errors or omissions of Exchange Order Book Officials
and PAR Officials. Rule 7.11 provides that the Exchange's liability
arising out of any errors or omissions of an Order Book Official or PAR
Official (or their assistants or clerks) shall be subject to the
limitations set forth in paragraph (a) of existing Rule 6.7, and to
further limitations set forth in paragraph (b) and (c) of Rule 7.11.
Under paragraph (b) of Rule 7.11, absent reasonable justification or
excuse, any single claim \23\ by a Trading Permit Holder or person
associated with a Trading Permit Holder for losses arising from errors
or omissions of an Order Book Official or PAR Official, and any claim
by the Exchange made pursuant to paragraph (d) of the Rule,\24\ must be
presented in writing to the opposing party within ten business days
following the transaction giving rise to the claim.\25\ All disputed
claims shall be referred to binding arbitration before an arbitration
panel whose resolution of the dispute shall be final, and there shall
be no appeal to the Board of Directors from a decision of such panel.
Under paragraph (c), liability under Rule 7.11 is limited as follows:
Should a Trading Permit Holder, TPH organization or the Exchange fail
to close out an uncompared trade in the period of time provided by Rule
10.1, then the opposing party's liability with respect to any claims
arising from such trade shall be limited to the lesser of (i) the loss
which would have been experienced by the claimant if the uncompared
trade had been closed out at the opening of trading on the day provided
in Rule 10.1 for the closing out of such uncompared trade; or (ii) the
actual loss realized by the claimant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Under paragraph (b), the term ``transaction'' means any
single order or instruction which is placed with an Order Book
Official or PAR Official, or any series of orders or instructions
which is placed with an Order Book Official or a PAR Official at
substantially the same time by the same Trading Permit Holder and
which relates to any one or more series of options of the same
class. All errors and omissions made by an Order Book Official or
PAR Official with respect to or arising out of any transaction shall
give rise to a ``single claim'' against the Exchange for losses
resulting therefrom as provided in paragraph (b) and in paragraph
(c), and the Exchange is free to assert any defense to such claim it
may have. No claim shall arise as to errors or omissions which are
found to have resulted from any failure by a Trading Permit Holder
(whether or not the Trading Permit Holder is claiming against the
Exchange pursuant to paragraph (b)), or by any person acting on
behalf of a Trading Permit Holder, to enter or cancel an order with
such Order Book Official or PAR Official on a timely basis or
clearly and accurately to communicate to such Order Book Official or
PAR Official: (i) The description or symbol of the security
involved; (ii) the exercise price or option contract price; (iii)
the type of option; (iv) the number of trading units; (v) the
expiration month; or (vi) any other information or data which is
material to the transaction. In addition, no claim shall be allowed
if, in the opinion of the arbitration panel, the Trading Permit
Holder or other person making such claim did not take promptly, upon
discovery of the errors or omissions, all proper steps to correct
such errors or omissions and to establish the loss resulting
therefrom. See Rule 7.11(b)(1).
    \24\ Under paragraph (d), if any damage is caused by an error or
omission of an Order Book Official or PAR Official which is the
result of any error or omission of a TPH organization, then such TPH
organization shall indemnify the Exchange and hold it harmless from
any claim of liability resulting from or relating to such damage.
See Rule 7.11(d).
    \25\ Provided, that if an error or omission has resulted in an
unmatched trade, then any claim based thereon shall be presented
after the unmatched trade has been closed out in accordance with
Rule 10.1, Disagreement on Unmatched Trades, but within ten business
days following such resolution of the unmatched trade. See Rule
7.11(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, Rule 6.7 would govern the liability
of the Exchange for claims arising out of any errors or omissions by
agents of the Exchange, which would include Order Book Officials, PAR
Officials and their respective assistants or clerks. Rule 7.11
therefore would be rendered superfluous. The Exchange does note that,
with the elimination of Rule 7.11, both the Exchange's reciprocal right
to bring a claim against Trading Permit Holders and the arbitration
process for disputed claims will be eliminated. The Exchange no longer
believes it is necessary to single out the errors or omissions of Order
Book Officials and PAR Officials in the manner described under Rule
7.11 as compared to other errors and omissions that are subject to Rule
6.7.\26\ As simplified and revised, Rule 6.7 would apply equally to all
types of claims by Trading Permit Holders against Covered Persons,
including Order Book Officials and PAR Officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange also notes that, in practice, there have not
been any disputed claims submitted to the arbitration process under
Rule 7.11 for several years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \27\ in general and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \28\ in
particular, which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. In particular, the proposal would amend Exchange Rule
6.7 to eliminate any implication of liability with respect to the
Exchange and other Covered Person resulting from the use or enjoyment
of the facilities offered by the Exchange, any interruption in or
failure or unavailability or any such facilities, or any action taken
or omitted to be taken in respect of the business of the Exchange. The
proposed rule change is consistent with and supplements existing law,
and would assist the Exchange in fulfilling its role as a national
securities exchange by avoiding the risk of tempering this critical
regulatory function to avoid the disruption and expense of unnecessary
litigation or potential catastrophic loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would also permit the Exchange to compensate Trading
Permit Holders for their losses incurred due to a Loss Event, even
though the Exchange would not have legal liability for those losses.
The proposed rule change would therefore facilitate the Exchange's
ability to make discretionary payments to redress a situation in which
Trading Permit Holders suffer losses due to a Loss Event. As stated
above, the Exchange represents that the determination to compensate a
Trading Permit Holder will be made on an equitable and non-
discriminatory basis without regard to the Exchange capacity of the
Trading Permit Holder, including whether the Trading Permit Holder is a
Designated Primary Market-Maker. The Exchange therefore believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, and Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange also believes that these policies would promote
fairness in the national market system. The proposed rule change would
allow CBOE to address Trading Permit Holder requests for compensation
under various circumstances and would allow CBOE to act in a fashion
similar to many of its competitors. As stated above, several exchanges
have substantially similar rules to those proposed here, and the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would place CBOE in a
similar position to address Trading Permit Holder requests.\29\ The
Exchange believes that to the extent there are any

differences, such differences are not substantive and are still
consistent with the scope of prior self-regulatory organization
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See BOX Rule 7230 and EDGA Rule 11.14; see also NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule 4626, ISE Rule 705, BATS
Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.16, and NYSE Rule 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that as Rule 6.7 will now govern the
liability of the Exchange for claims arising out of any errors or
omissions by agents of the Exchange (which would include Order Book
Officials, PAR Officials and their respective assistants or clerks),
Rule 7.11 is superfluous and unnecessary to maintain in the rules.
Additionally, the Exchange no longer believes it is necessary to single
out the errors or omissions of Order Book Officials and PAR Officials
in the manner described under Rule 7.11 as compared to other errors and
omissions that are subject to Rule 6.7. The Exchange notes that
although the Exchange's reciprocal right to bring a claim against
Trading Permit Holders and the arbitration process for disputed claims
will be eliminated, such language is no longer necessary.\30\ As such,
the Exchange believes that eliminating Rule 7.11 maintains clarity in
the rules and avoids potential confusion, which removes impediments and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In practice, there have not been any disputed claims
submitted to the arbitration process under Rule 7.11 for several
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As stated above, the
Exchange believes that these policies would promote fairness in the
national market system. The proposed rule change would allow CBOE to
address Trading Permit Holder requests for compensation under various
circumstances and would allow CBOE to act in a fashion similar to many
of its competitors. In addition, as stated above, several exchanges
have substantially similar rules to those proposed here, except as
otherwise noted, and the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change would place CBOE in a similar position to address Trading Permit
Holder requests.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \32\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \33\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of
the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2015-042 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-042. 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
St. NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2015-042, and should be submitted on or before June 10, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12148 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 59147-59148]
[DOCID:fr17no09-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13011-001]

Shelbyville Hydro LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Commencement of
Licensing Proceeding, Scoping Meetings, Solicitation of Comments on the
Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated
Study Requests

November 9, 2009.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Commencing Licensing Proceeding.
    b. Project No.: 13011-001.
    c. Dated Filed: September 8, 2009.
    d. Submitted By: Shelbyville Hydro LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Lake Shelbyville Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: At the Corps of Engineers' Lake Shelbyville Dam on the
Kaskaskia River in Shelby County, Illinois.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Brent Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC,
P.O. Box 535, Rigby, Idaho 83442 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Corrine Servis, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Baummer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6837.
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR Part 402; and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Shelbyville Hydro LLC as
the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Shelbyville Hydro LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.5 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission
will issue the Scoping Document for the proposed Lake Shelbyville Dam
Hydroelectric Project on or about November 9, 2009.
    n. A copy of the PAD and the scoping document are available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
paragraph h.
    Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified
via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD filed
September 8, 2009 and Scoping Document, as well as study requests. All
comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and study requests should be
sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on
the PAD and Scoping Document, study requests, requests for cooperating
agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff
related to the merits of the potential application (original and eight
copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following address:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the
Commission must include on the first page, the project name (Lake
Shelbyville Dam Hydroelectric Project) and number (P-13011-001), and
bear the heading Comments on Pre-Application Document, Study Requests,
Comments on Scoping Document, Request for Cooperating Agency Status, or
Communications to and from Commission Staff. Any individual or entity
interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or
Scoping Document, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do
so by January 6, 2010.
    Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, study requests, requests
for cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of
communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ferconline.asp) under the e-filing link. For a simpler method of
submitting text only comments, click on ``Quick Comment.''
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization

concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input
from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations,
and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff
in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of
environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The
times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009.
    Time: 7 p.m. (CST).
    Location: Lions Community Building, North 9th Street, Forest Park,
Shelbyville, IL 62565.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Friday, December 4, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m. (CST).
    Location: Same location.
    The scoping document, which outlines the issues to be addressed in
the environmental document, will be mailed to the individuals and
entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the scoping
document will be available at the scoping meetings, and may be viewed
on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow
the directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Depending on
the extent of comments received, a revised Scoping Document may or may
not be issued.

Site Visit (Environmental Site Review)

    Shelbyville Hydro LLC will conduct a tour of the proposed project
site at 2 p.m. on Thursday December 3, 2009. All participants should
meet in the parking lot of the Spillway Access Area off route 16 at the
Lake Shelbyville Dam. Anyone with questions about the site visit should
contact Ms. Corrine Servis of Symbiotics, LLC at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>on or before November 25,
2009.

Scoping Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Present a proposed list of
issues to be addressed in the EA; (2) Review and discuss existing
conditions and resource agency management objectives; (3) Review and
discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and
study needs; (4) Review and discuss the process plan and schedule for
pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in
Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible,
maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and
certification processes; and (5) Discuss requests by any federal or
state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for
development of an environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and the scoping
document are included in item n of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become
part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27471 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58261-58262]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14258-000]

American River Power I, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On August 22, 2011, American River Power I, LLC (American River)
filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), to study the feasibility of the
proposed Luke Chute, Ohio--Water Power No. 14258 to be located at the
existing Luke Chute Lock and Dam on the Muskingum River, in the town of
Beckett, in Washington County, Ohio. The Luke Chute Lock and Dam is
owned by the State of Ohio. There are no federal lands associated with
the project.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing Luke Chute
Dam and reservoir; (2) a new 30-foot by 40-foot powerhouse housing
controls, switchgear, and related equipment; (3) new intake structure
and trash rack containing five 150-foot-long bays and ten vertical
slide gates; (4) a new 200-foot-long by 120-foot-wide power canal; (5)
three new 927-kilowatt and two new 632-kilowatt turbine-generator units
with a combined capacity of 3.9 megawatts; (6) a new 150-foot-long by
120 to 200-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a new 1,500-foot-long, 12.5 to 34.5-
kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The project
would have an estimated annual generation of 15,600 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. John P. Henry, 726 Eldridge Avenue,
Collingswood, NJ 08107-1708,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tyrone A. Williams,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-1258-000) in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.

    Dated: September 13, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24018 Filed 9-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)] [Notices] [Page 44079] [FR Doc No: C1-2011-17381]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64824; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-063]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,  Incorporated: Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed  Rule Change Relating to PULSe Fees

July 6, 2011.

Correction

    In notice document 2011-17381, appearing on pages 40965-40967, the  agency docket number was inadvertently omitted from the document  heading. It should appear as seen above.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-17381 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: December 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 73401-73404]
[DOCID:fr27de07-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56991; File No. SR-OCC-2007-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Cleared Contracts Carried in a Proprietary Account

December 19, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on October 23, 2007, the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared
primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \3\
thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. 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. 78s-1(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would clarify that existing provisions of
OCC's By-laws and Rules constitute a ``cross-margining or similar
arrangement'' for purposes of the United States Bankruptcy Code with
respect to cleared contracts carried in any proprietary account at OCC
to the extent that commodity contracts and securities contracts are
permitted to be carried in such account.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.

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

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add Interpretation
and Policy .02 to section 3 of Article VI of OCC's By-laws to clarify
that OCC's existing By-laws and Rules constitute ``a cross-margining
agreement or similar arrangement'' for purposes of the United States
Bankruptcy Code with respect to cleared contracts carried in any
proprietary account at OCC to the extent that commodity futures and
futures options (collectively ``commodity contracts'') are permitted to
be carried in such account along with securities options and other
securities (collectively ``securities contracts'').\5\ Where such
positions are permitted to be so commingled, margin is calculated under
Chapter VI of OCC's Rules based on the net risk of all such cleared
contracts whether they are securities contracts or commodity contracts.
``Proprietary accounts'' within the scope of Interpretation and Policy
.02 include (i) a firm account, (ii) a separate market-maker's account
for which the market-maker is a clearing member or a proprietary
market-maker trading for his own account, (iii) a combined market-
maker's account confined to the exchange transactions of market-makers
who are clearing members or proprietary market-makers trading for their
own accounts, (iv) an OCC proprietary X-M account, or (v) a proprietary
futures professional account. Under OCC's By-laws, all such proprietary
accounts must be confined to the transactions of the clearing member
itself and of such other persons as are not required to be treated as
``customers'' of the clearing member either under the definition in
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') Regulation 1.3(k) \6\
or under Commission Rules 8c-1,\7\ 15c2-1,\8\ or 15c3-3,\9\ or
Commission staff interpretations or no-action letters thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Security futures carried in a proprietary account would be
considered to be both securities contracts and commodity contracts
for purposes of this rule filing.
    \6\ 17 CFR 1.3(k).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.8c-1.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-1.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
    \10\ Article VI, Section 3(a) of OCC's By-laws provides that a
``firm account * * * shall be confined to (i) the Exchange
transactions in cleared securities other than security futures of
such Clearing Member's non-customers [which is defined in terms of
rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934], (ii) the Exchange
transactions in (x) futures other than security futures and (y)
futures options of persons whose transactions are not required to be
treated as the transactions of futures customers, and (iii) the
Exchange transactions in security futures of persons whose
transactions are not required to be treated as the transactions
either of securities customers or of futures customers.'' The term
``futures customer'' is defined in Article I of OCC's By-Laws as ``a
person whose positions are carried by a futures commission merchant
* * * in a futures account required to be segregated under Section
4d of the Commodity Exchange Act and regulations of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission thereunder.'' Article VI, Section 3(c)
provides that a proprietary combined market-makers' account is
confined to transactions of ``proprietary Market-Makers,'' which is
defined to include ``any participant, as such, in an account that is
not required to be segregated under Section 4d of the Commodity
Exchange Act.'' A ``separate Market-Maker's account'' under Section
3(b) is similarly limited to a ``proprietary Market-Maker.'' An
``OCC Proprietary X-M account (together with the corresponding
proprietary X-M account at a participating futures clearing
organization)'' is defined in the applicable cross-margining
agreements to be an account of a person whose account is a
``proprietary account'' within the meaning of Section 1.3(y) of CFTC
regulations. Finally, a ``proprietary futures professional account''
is defined in Article I of the By-laws to be an account of a futures
professional that is not a futures customer. Accordingly, all of
these accounts are defined in terms that exclude any person whose
property is required to be segregated under Section 4d of the CEA.
Moreover, a futures commission merchant is itself obligated to carry
the positions of futures customers in CFTC segregated accounts and
would be in violation of that obligation by carrying them in any
account at OCC that is not such an account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') \11\ and CFTC
regulations thereunder require that futures and futures options traded
on a ``designated contract market'' and carried for the account of a
``customer'' as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.3(k) must be segregated by
the carrying futures commission merchant (``FCM'') from funds or
positions that are ``proprietary'' to the carrying FCM. Although
Section 4d and the CFTC regulations permit the property of separate
customers of the same FCM to be commingled at the clearinghouse in
segregated customer accounts, CFTC Regulation 1.22 provides that
``[c]ustomer funds shall not be used to carry trades or positions of
the same commodity and/or option customer other than in commodities or
commodity options traded through the facilities of a [CFTC-designated]
contract market.'' \12\ Accordingly, OCC carries trades and positions
of commodity customers in separate segregated funds accounts in
compliance with the CFTC's regulations and except in accordance with
specific cross-margining orders of the CFTC does not commingle these
funds with the funds of securities options customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 7 U.S.C. 6d.
    \12\ 17 CFR 1.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Section 4d and the cited regulations do not apply to
accounts that are ``proprietary'' within the meaning of CFTC Regulation
1.3(y).\13\ There is no prohibition against commingling of proprietary
funds of an FCM relating to its futures activities with other
proprietary funds of the same FCM at the clearinghouse level.
Accordingly, a clearing member may maintain both securities contracts
and commodity contracts in any proprietary account to the extent that
such inclusion is otherwise consistent with the purposes of the
account. The result is that clearing level margin requirements
applicable to any such proprietary account are determined under OCC
Rule 601 based upon the net liquidating value of all positions carried
in the account. Therefore, the margin that would otherwise be required
on positions in securities contracts may be reduced by offsetting
positions in commodity contracts and vice versa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 1.3(y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 561(b)(2)(A) of the United States Bankruptcy Code
(``Code'') \14\ contains certain prohibitions against the offset by a
party of obligations to a ``debtor'' (i.e., a person subject to a
bankruptcy proceeding under the Code) arising under or in connection
with a commodity contract as defined under section 761(4) of the Code
\15\ against any claim arising under or in connection with other
instruments including securities contracts ``except to the extent that
the party has positive net equity in its commodity accounts at the
debtor.'' Section 561(b)(2)(B) of the Code contains a similar
prohibition against such offsets applicable to ``another commodity
broker'' having an obligation to the debtor arising under or in
connection with a commodity contract entered into on behalf of a
``customer of the debtor.'' \16\ The legislative history of these
provisions states, ``Subsections 561(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) limit the
depletion of assets available for distribution to customers of
commodity brokers.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 11 U.S.C. 561(b)(2)(A).
    \15\ 11 U.S.C. 761(4). This very broad ``commodity contracts''
definition should include commodity futures and futures options and
may include security futures as well.
    \16\ 11 U.S.C. 561(b)(2)(B).
    \17\ H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, part 1 at 132 (April 8, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC recently adopted a ``close-out netting'' rule, set forth in
section 27 of Article VI of OCC's By-laws.\18\ Section 27 is intended
to allow clearing members to calculate their credit exposure to OCC on
a net basis for balance sheet and regulatory capital purposes to the
extent consistent with

customer protection rules under the Act and the CEA. Paragraph (d) of
section 27 effectively permits netting of assets and liabilities within
proprietary accounts without limitation as to whether the assets and
liabilities in the account arise from securities contracts or commodity
contracts. Absent an applicable exception, the prohibition in section
561(b)(2)(A) could be interpreted to limit such netting and make it
unenforceable to the extent that there are both securities contracts
and commodity contracts in such accounts.\19\ However, an exception to
the prohibition in section 561(b)(2)(A) and section 561(b)(2)(B) was
created for cross-margining arrangements, and that exception is
applicable to the close-out netting provided for in section 27 of
Article VI of OCC's By-laws insofar as such netting permits the offset
of commodity contracts against securities contracts in proprietary
accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56069 (July 13, 2007),
72 FR 39869 (July 20, 2007) (File No. SR-OCC-2006-19).
    \19\ Section 561(b)(2)(B) should not apply to close-out netting
in the event of an insolvency of OCC. Section 561(b)(2)(B) would
appear to provide in effect that a clearing member may not net an
obligation to OCC arising from a commodity contract entered into on
behalf of a ``customer of the debtor'' against amounts owed by OCC
to the clearing member arising under a securities contract or other
contracts other than commodity contracts. Because OCC would be the
debtor, the term ``customer of the debtor'' would appear to refer to
a customer of OCC. OCC does not believe that a clearing member would
likely be deemed to have entered into any commodity contract on
behalf of any party that would also be deemed to be a customer of
OCC for purposes of this provision, and we therefore believe that
Section 561(b)(2)(B) should not be interpreted as limiting the
enforceability of any provisions of Section 27 of Article VI of
OCC's By-laws. In any event, however, Section 561(b)(2)(B) would be
overridden by the exception in Section 561(b)(3)(A) as set forth in
the proposed Interpretation and Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 561(b)(3)(A) of the Code provides that ``no provision of
[Section 561(b)(2)(A) or (B)] shall prohibit the offset of claims and
obligations that arise under a cross-margining agreement or similar
arrangement that has been submitted to the [CFTC] under paragraph (1)
or (2) of section 5c(c) of the [CEA] and has not been abrogated or
rendered ineffective by the [CFTC].'' All of OCC's By-laws and Rules
have been submitted under Paragraph (1) or (2) of section 5c(c) of the
CEA, and none has been abrogated or rendered ineffective by the CFTC.
As commonly understood, a ``cross-margining agreement'' includes an
arrangement under which commodity contracts and securities contracts
are margined together as a single portfolio.\20\ This is precisely what
takes place under OCC By-laws and Rules and its Rule 601 in particular
in all proprietary accounts to the extent that they contain both
securities contracts and commodity contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26153 (October 3,
1988), 53 FR 39561 (October 3, 1988) (File No. SR-OCC-86-17)
approving the first cross-margining program between OCC and its
commodity clearing affiliate, The Intermarket Clearing Corporation
(``ICC''). CFTC approval of that cross-margining program was
memorialized in a letter from Jean A. Webb, Secretary, to George S.
Hender, President, ICC (June 1, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The original cross-margining program, which was initiated between
OCC and ICC in 1988, was limited to proprietary accounts.\21\ In
connection with its approval, the Commission stated that ``it appears
that no statutory, Commission or CFTC rule changes are required to
implement a cross-margining system for proprietary accounts.'' OCC rule
changes were necessary in 1988 in order to implement proprietary cross-
margining because OCC and ICC were separate clearing organizations and
needed to have special arrangements between them in order to combine
securities contracts cleared by OCC and commodity contracts cleared by
ICC for margin purposes. However, when OCC itself registered as a
derivatives clearing organization under the CEA, cross-margining in
proprietary accounts was an automatic consequence of that dual
registration. Of course, a rule filing was necessary in order to
combine customer positions in security contracts and commodity
contracts for margin purposes even where OCC clears both the commodity
contracts and the securities contracts. Accordingly, OCC submitted
appropriate rule filings to both the Commission and the CFTC and
received the necessary approval to create an internal cross-margining
program for non-proprietary market professionals.\22\ In the case of
proprietary cross-margining, however, no such approval is required, and
this rule filing is being submitted simply in order to clarify OCC's
interpretation of its existing rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26153.
    \22\ The proposed rule change adopted By-Law Article VI, Section
25. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50509 (Oct. 8, 2004), 69 FR
61289 (October 15, 2004) (File No. SR-OCC-2004-10) and CFTC order
issued November 5, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since its approval of the first cross-margining program in
1988,\23\ the Commission has repeatedly expressed its support for such
programs and has found that they are consistent with the Act and in
particular with section 17A of the Act. Indeed, there has been wide
support for cross-margining systems over many years. For example, the
Report of the Presidential Task Force on Market Mechanisms (``Brady
Report'') noted that the absence of an effective cross-margining system
for futures and securities options markets contributed to payment
strains in October 1987. Accordingly, the Brady Report recommended that
cross-margining be allowed in order to permit market participants with
an investment in futures to receive credit for a hedged investment in
stocks or options.\24\ The President's Working Group on Financial
Markets in its Interim Report concurred recommending that the
Commission and CFTC not only approve the OCC/ICC cross-margining
program but facilitate cross-margining among other clearing
agencies.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26153.
    \24\ Brady Report at 66 (January 1988).
    \25\ Interim Report of the President's Working Group on
Financial Markets, Appendix D at 11 (May 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously found that cross-margining programs
are consistent with clearing agency responsibilities under section 17A
of the Act. In so finding, the Commission noted that cross-margining
programs reduce the risk that a clearing member would become insolvent
in a distressed market and the corresponding risk that one insolvency
could lead to multiple insolvencies in a ripple effect and that they
therefore enhance the security of the clearing system.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32708 (August 2, 1993)
58 FR 42586 (August 10, 1993) (File No. SR-OCC-93-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the rules of OCC
including any rule proposed to be amended.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \28\ promulgated
thereunder because the proposal constitutes an interpretation with
respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing
rule of

OCC.\29\ At any time within sixty days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
    \29\ The Commission neither makes any findings nor expresses any
opinion with respect to OCC's representations and interpretations
regarding the application of the Bankruptcy Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-OCC-2007-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2007-15. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC. 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-OCC-2007-15 and should be
submitted on or before January 17, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24984 Filed 12-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3648-3649]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2009-0012]

NIMS Training Plan

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requesting
public comments on the NIMS Training Plan. This plan defines National
Incident Management System (NIMS) national training. It specifies
stakeholder responsibilities and activities for developing,
maintaining, and sustaining NIMS training. In addition to delineating
responsibilities and actions, the NIMS Training Plan defines the
process for developing training and personnel qualification
requirements for emergency management/response personnel.

DATES: Comments must be received by February 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2009-
0012, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID FEMA-2009-0012 in
the subject line of the message.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20472.
    Instructions: 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 Act
notice that is available via the Privacy Notice link in the footer of
http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA,
Office of Chief Counsel, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Molloy, Program Specialist,
Emergency Management Institute, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Building G-
Room 209, Emmitsburg, MD 21727. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 1, 2004, the Department of Homeland
Security published the initial version of the National Incident
Management System (NIMS). NIMS provides a consistent nationwide
template to enable Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, the
private sector, and nongovernmental organizations to work together to
prepare for, prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the
effects of incidents regardless of cause, size, location, or
complexity. This consistency provides the foundation for use of NIMS
for all incidents, ranging from daily occurrences to incidents
requiring a coordinated Federal response. The NIMS document was revised
and released in December 2008 based on input from stakeholders at every
level within the Nation's response community and lessons learned during
recent incidents.
    A critical tool in promoting the nationwide implementation of NIMS
is a well-developed training program that guides and enables NIMS
training throughout the Nation. Core competencies will form the basis
of the training courses' learning objectives and personnel
qualifications that validate proficiency.
    The National Integration Center at FEMA is charged with developing
NIMS core competencies, training courses, and personnel qualifications.
This updated NIMS Training Plan describes the operational foundations
of these efforts, defines NIMS core competencies, training courses, and
personnel qualifications as part of NIMS national training, assembles
and updates the training guidance for available NIMS courses (organized
as a core curriculum), and lays out a future plan to continue
development of NIMS national training.
    The document is available for nationwide review at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2009-0012. FEMA will review
all comments received and may revise the document accordingly. Once the
revision is complete, FEMA will release the final draft to the nation
and post it

on the NIMS Resource Center: http://www.fema.gov/nims.

    Authority:  6 U.S.C. 312; Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (HSPD)-5.

    Dated: January 11, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-1111 Filed 1-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-46-P