[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63549-63550]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-561-000]

Crescent Point Energy U.S. Corp., Eagle Rock Exploration Ltd.;
Notice of Application

    Take notice that on September 29, 2015, Crescent Point Energy U.S.
Corp. (Crescent Point), 555 17th Street, Suite 1800, Denver, Colorado
80202 and Eagle Rock Exploration Ltd. (Eagle Rock), 300, 340-12th
Avenue SW., Calgary, Alberta T2R IL5, filed a joint application in the
above-referenced docket seeking authorization under section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations to:
(i) Transfer to Crescent Point the NGA section 3 authorization and
Presidential Permit that were issued to Eagle Rock on August 5, 2008,
in Docket No. CP08-90-000; and (ii) amend the section 3 Authorization
and Permit so that it reflects Crescent Point as the current owner and
operator of the existing border crossing facility located at the
international boundary between Glacier County, Montana, and the
Province of Alberta, Canada (Border Crossing Facility). Additionally,
Crescent Point

requests the Commission to vacate its section 3 authorization and
terminate its Presidential Permit so that it may properly abandon in-
place the Border Crossing Facility, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at 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 at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Marcus
Sisk, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 1801 K Street NW., Suite 750, Washington,
DC 20006, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit five copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and five copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: November 3, 2015.

    Dated: October 13, 2015.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26540 Filed 10-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14845-14847]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1236; Product Identifier 2017-SW-136-AD; Amendment
39-19613; AD 2019-07-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson Helicopter) Model R66
helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the oil tank outlet's fitting
color. If the fitting is blue, this AD requires replacing the tank with
an oil tank that lacks a blue fitting. This AD also requires
determining the revision letter on the ink stamp, and installing an oil
tank angle based on that determination. This AD was prompted by reports
of broken oil tank internal baffles. The actions of this AD are
intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 17, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of May 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA
90505; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You may review a copy of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1236.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1236; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danny Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California

90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On September 21, 2018, at 83 FR 47848, the Federal Register
published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Robinson
Helicopter Model R66 helicopters, serial numbers 0003 through 0789,
0791, 0794 and 0796. The NPRM proposed to require, within 100 hours
time-in-service (TIS), inspecting the oil tank outlet fitting color and
replacing the tank before further flight if the fitting is blue. The
NPRM also proposed to require determining the revision letter of the
G689-1 oil tank assembly identification ink stamp and then installing
G805-1 angle if the identification ink stamp is followed by revision
letter F, G, H, or I, or by revision letter J with no yellow dot near
the ink stamp. For revision letter J, a yellow dot indicates that the
angle has been pre-installed and that no further action would be
necessary. If the identification ink stamp is followed by a revision
letter K, the NPRM proposed no further action would be necessary.
    The NPRM was prompted by report of broken oil tank internal baffles
caused by vibration. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent
a broken baffle inside an oil tank, which could result in loss of oil
pressure and oil flow to the engine, leading to engine failure and
subsequent forced landing of the helicopter.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Robinson Helicopter R66 Service Bulletin SB-21A,
Revision A, dated June 6, 2017, which specifies installing an angle in
the tank outlet to prevent a failed baffle from blocking the outlet.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The service information specifies performing the corrective actions
within the next 100 hours TIS or by July 31, 2017, whichever comes
first. This AD requires the actions within 100 hours TIS.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 265 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. Labor costs average $85 a work-hour.
    The cost for identifying the oil tank assembly identification ink
stamp and outlet fitting color is minimal. Inserting a G805-1 angle
requires about 1 work-hour and parts cost about $17 for an estimated
cost of $102 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-07-02 Robinson Helicopter Company: Amendment 39-19613; Docket
No. FAA-2017-1236; Product Identifier 2017-SW-136-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Robinson Helicopter Company Model R66
helicopters, serial numbers 0003 through 0789, 0791, 0794 and 0796,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as broken baffle inside an
oil tank. This condition could result in loss of oil pressure and
oil flow to the engine, leading to engine failure and subsequent
forced landing of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 17, 2019.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 100 hours time-in-service:
    (1) Visually inspect the oil tank outlet fitting color to
determine if it is blue. If the fitting is blue, before further
flight, replace the tank with an oil tank that does not have a blue
fitting.
    (2) Locate the G689-1 oil tank assembly identification ink stamp
on the top surface of the oil tank, and determine the revision
letter.
    (i) If the identification ink stamp is followed by a revision
letter F, G, H, or I unless previously installed, install a G805-1
angle as follows:

    (A) Drain the engine oil and disconnect the F723-1 line assembly
from the tank fitting at the firewall, using as reference Figure 1
of Robinson Helicopter Company R66 Service Bulletin SB-21A, Revision
A, dated June 6, 2017.
    (B) Pinch the flanges of G805-1 angle at the minimum required to
enable insertion, and insert the angle in the oil tank outlet
fitting until the angle snaps in place.
    (C) Connect the F723-1 line assembly to the tank fitting.
Special torque nut to 675 in.-lb. Torque stripe the fitting.
    (ii) If the identification ink stamp is followed by a revision
letter J, determine if there is a yellow dot near the ink stamp. A
yellow dot indicates that the angle has been pre-installed and that
no further action is required by this AD. If there is not a yellow
dot near the ink stamp, install a G805-1 angle by following the
procedures in paragraphs (e)(2)(i)(A) through (e)(2)(i)(C) of this
AD.
    (iii) If the identification ink stamp is followed by a revision
letter K, no further action is required by this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Danny Nguyen, Aerospace
Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness
Division, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7910, Engine Oil
Storage (Airframe Furnished).

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Robinson Helicopter Company R66 Service Bulletin SB-21A,
Revision A, dated June 6, 2017.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Robinson Helicopter Company service information
identified in this AD, contact Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901
Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(310) 539-5198; or at http://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 26, 2019.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-07177 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36655]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0375]
RIN 1625-AA00

Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Oakmont Yacht
Club Fireworks; Allegheny River Mile 11.75 to 12.25; Pittsburgh, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Oakmont
Yacht Club Fireworks on the Allegheny River, from mile 11.75 to 12.25,
extending the entire width of the river. This zone will be in effect on
July 19, 2014 from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. This zone is needed to
protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the
hazards associated with the Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks. During the
enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety
zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated
representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 will be enforced on July 19,
2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email Ronald Lipscomb, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone
for the annual Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801
Table 1, Table No. 42; Sector Ohio Valley.
    Under the provisions of C33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone
listed in Table 1, Table No. 42; Sector Ohio Valley, is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage
through the safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the
Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a); 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In
addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will
provide the maritime community with advance notification of this
enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine
Information Broadcasts.
    If the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or designated representative
determines that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full
duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
regulated area.

    Dated: June 4, 2014.
L.N. Weaver,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2014-15135 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19935]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08000]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0688; SEC File No. 270-631]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 203A-5.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved collection
of information discussed below.
    The title for the collection of information is Rule 203A-5. Rule
203A-5 (17 CFR 275.203A-5) established a one-time requirement for
investment advisers registered with the Commission as of January 1,
2012 to file a mandatory amendment to their Form ADV by March 30, 2012,
and, if they no longer met Commission-registration eligibility
requirements, to withdraw from registration by filing Form ADV-W by
June 28, 2012. The deadlines for the information collected pursuant the
rule were March 30, 2012 (for Form ADV amendments) and June 28, 2012
(for withdrawals). The Commission is no longer collecting any
information pursuant to the rule.
    Accordingly, the staff estimates that, each year, no advisers will
have to file a Form ADV amendment or Form ADV-W withdrawal pursuant to
rule 203A-5, and that the total burden for the information collection
is zero hours at a cost of $0. Although Commission staff estimates that
there is no burden associated with rule 203A-5, the staff is requesting
a one hour burden for administrative purposes.
    The collection of information under rule 203A-5 was mandatory. The
information provided under rule 203A-5 is not kept confidential. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer,
Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: April 4, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08000 Filed 4-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64746-64748]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27256]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424; FRL-9988-12-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; MS; PSD Infrastructure Plan for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted
by the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ), on December 11, 2015, to demonstrate that
the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The
CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated
by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP.
Specifically, EPA is approving the portions of the submission that
relate to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
requirements. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS have been addressed in separate
rulemakings.

DATES: This rule will be effective January 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), EPA
promulgated a

revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The standard was
strengthened from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 12.0
[mu]g/m\3\. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions States generally
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes,
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections
110(a)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this action, EPA is approving Mississippi's PSD
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3)
and 110(a)(2)(J) (hereafter ``PSD Elements'') for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
published on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36848), EPA proposed to approve
Mississippi's PSD Elements of the December 11, 2015, submittal.
Comments on the NPRM were due on or before July 8, 2016. EPA received
no adverse comments on the proposed action. In the final rule on
December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89391), EPA inadvertently indicated that the
Agency had already approved these requirements. Specifically, in the
December 12, 2016, Federal Register final rule, EPA stated that on
March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14019), the Agency approved Mississippi's
December 11, 2015, submission regarding the PSD Elements. However, the
March 18, 2015, Federal Register final rule only addressed the PSD
Elements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS.
Therefore, EPA is taking the opportunity to correct this error and is
approving the PSD Elements for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, but
rather finding that Mississippi's already approved SIP meets certain
CAA requirements.

II. Final Action

    As described above, EPA is approving the portions of the above-
described infrastructure SIP submission submitted by Mississippi on
December 11, 2015, to address the PSD requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA
for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 19, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 6, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Z--Mississippi

0
2. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding new entry for ``110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
                                       Applicable       submittal
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        geographic or        date/      EPA approval  date        Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area   effective
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure  Mississippi........   12/11/2015  12/18/2018, [Insert  Addressing the PSD
 Requirements for the 2012                                           citation of          permitting
 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                 publication].        requirements of
                                                                                sections 110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
                                                                                (prong 3) and
                                                                                110(a)(2)(J) only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-27256 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 35)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9451-9452]
[DOCID:fr21fe08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0059; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-90]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Fort Kent, ME

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  This action establishes Class E Airspace at Fort Kent, ME to
support a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
Special Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) that has been developed for
medical flight operations into the Northern Maine Medical Center. This
action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule
(IFR) operations by providing that required controlled airspace to
protect for this approach around Fort Kent, ME.

DATES:  Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. Comments for
inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before April 7,
2008.

ADDRESSES:  Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building, Ground Floor, W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone 1-800-
647-5527; Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2008-
0059; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-90, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comment
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Melinda Giddens, System Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body
of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse
or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse
or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specific above. After the
close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were
received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within
the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice
of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Comment Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed at

http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also

be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES above
or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the
closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be
amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2008-0059; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-90.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Fort Kent, ME providing the
controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation
RNAV Global Positioning System (GPS) 011 Point in Space (PinS) approach
developed for the Northern Maine Medical Center. In today's environment
where speed of treatment for medical injuries is imperative, landing
sites have been developed for helicopter medical Lifeguard flights or
Lifeflights at the local hospitals. Controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required for
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations and to encompass all
Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical,
therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace at Fort
Kent, ME. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA
Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace near the Northern Maine Medical
Center in Fort Kent, ME.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANNE ME E5 Fort Kent, ME [New]

Northern Maine Medical Center
    (Lat. 47[deg]15'54'' N., long. 68[deg]35'36'' W.)
Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 68[deg]34'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
of the Earth within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space
Coordinates (lat. 47[deg]15'00'' N., long. 68[deg]34'43'' W.)
serving the Northern Maine Medical Center excluding that airspace
outside of the United States.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 24, 2008.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 08-734 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


Jan 21, 2004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Product Chemistry Science Chapter on Pine Oil for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED)

From: A. Najm Shamim, Ph. D., Chemist Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

To: Ben Chambliss, Team Leader Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

Thru: Tim McMahon, Senior Toxicologist and Chair: ADTC Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

And Michelle Centra, Member ADTC Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

And Connie Welch, Chief, Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

Enclosed is the Science Chapter of Product Chemistry of Pine Oil for Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) process PRODUCT CHEMISTRY CHAPTER A. Chemical Overview Pine oil is generally used as a disinfectant fluid. Because Pine oil is a mixture, Pine Oil Blend 110990 ( November 9, 1990) was made by the Pine oil industry as a distinct entity for testing purposes ( physical/ chemical, toxicological etc) only. Registered Manufacturing Use products ( MUPs) contain pine oil at concentrations between 99 to 100%, in all these products alpha terpineol is the major constituent ( 80%). Pine Oil Blend 110990 was made using: Glidco Organics Pine Oil ( EPA Reg # 13648 8), Unipine 80 ( EPA Reg#: 9886 4), Herco Pine Oil ( Reg#: 891 175), Sentesis Pine Oil 80 ( Reg#: 49547 3), Arizole Pine Oil 80 ( Reg#: 39055 1) ( currently known as Sylvapine Pine Oil), Arizole Pine Oil ( 39055 2), and El Pinol ( Reg#: 11688 3). Glidco Pine Oil 80, Sentesis Pine Oil 80 and Arizole Pine Oil are no longer registered as active products.

According to the Agency's database, there are 17 MUP registrations and 81 end use products ( EUPs) registered as actives.

B. Chemical Identification ° Name: Pine Oil ° Chemical Family: alpha Terpineol and Terpinolene ( Terpene alcohol) ° Chemical Name: 1 Methyl 4 isopropyl 1 cyclo hexen 8 ol ° Common/ Trade Names: Pine Oil 80 ° CAS Number: 8002 09 3 ° Molecular Formula: C 10 H 18 O ° Molecular Structure: CH 3 C 6 H 9( OH) C 3 H 5 C. Physical/ Chemical Properties The following characteristics have been reported for pine oil: Technical Grade Active Ingredient ( TGAI):

° Molecular Weight: 154.0 ° Color: Colorless to pale yellow ° Physical State: liquid ° Specific gravity: 0.952 at 20oC ° b. p.: ~ 210 o C at 750 mm Hg ° Dissociation Constant: NA ( insoluble in water) ° pH: NA ( insoluble in water) ° Stability: 30day accelerated storage study showed the substance is stable ° Melting point: N/ A ° Water Solubility: insoluble in water ( immiscible) ° Solubility in organic solvents: Isopropyl alcohol > 90% Toluene > 90% ° Octanol water Partition Coefficient: Can not be determined ( insoluble in water) ° Vapor Pressure: 0.2 mm Hg at 20

C ° Corrosion Characteristics: N/ A


BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
X

In the Matter of

	AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS, S.A.			Docket: OST-2003-15092

Under Section 41310(c) of the International Air Transportation

Fair Competitive Practices Act, as amended

------------------------------------------------------------------------
X

NOTICE OF FILING

TRANSLATION OF DECISION

Communications regarding this document should be sent to:

							John N. Romans (JR-1833)

							ROSEN WEINHAUS LLP

							40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor

							New York, New York  10005

							Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

							Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

							E-mail:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	 						Attorneys for

							Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A.

Dated:  December 17, 2003

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
X

In the Matter of

	AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS, S.A.			Docket: OST-2003-15092

Under Section 41310(c) of the International Air Transportation

Fair Competitive Practices Act, as amended

------------------------------------------------------------------------
X

NOTICE OF THE NEED TO FILE

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

	Further to the Notice filed by Aerolineas Argentinas S.A., on December
12, 2003, attached is a translation of a short “clarification” filed
by the Sala II court of it’s decision in the Lufthansa case, dated
February 20, 2003.

							Respectfully submitted,

						   By:	_________/s/_____________

							John N. Romans

							ROSEN WEINHAUS LLP

							40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor

							New York, New York 10005

							Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

							Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

							E-mail:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

							Counsel For

							AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS, S.A.

Dated:  December 17, 2003

67 764/02 	Luftansa Lineas Aeras Alemanes

[Lufthansa German Airlines]

SA – Inc Precautionary Measure on Judgment 577/02 re: Precautionary
Measure (Autonomous)

Buenos Aires, February 20, 2003

WHEREAS:

	1) That the plaintiff requests clarification of the scope of the
precautionary measure issued by this Court, by majority, which
stipulated – in exercise of the powers derived from art. 204 of the
C.P.C.C. and in order to assure the rights of all subjects involved in
the matter – that service providers, Aeropuertos Argentina 2000, S.A.
and Fuerza Aerea Argentina – must charge for the airport fees
mentioned therein at the peso-U.S. dollar exchange rate and credit to
their assets the value of one peso per U.S. dollar. Additionally, the
judicial embargo on the difference between said parity and the exchange
rate for those operations was resolved so that the funds may be returned
to the user of the services for which the intended lawsuit proceeds.

	It requests that the fees accrued and paid since decree 577/02 (April
4, 2002) was issued until the pronouncement of this Court receive the
same settlement treatment of the differences, embargo, and deposit in
the account on file as stipulated by that resolution.

	2) That the decision adopted by the Tribunal in exercise of the powers
derived from art. 204 of the Procedural Code required the modification
of the terms of what was resolved by the first instance judge.

	That said, it should be clarified that the mode of execution of the
precautionary measure that results from resolution of folios 176/180
covers all fees accrued and paid since the pronouncement of the judge
from which he refused the requested appeal. In regard to those comprised
from the issuance of decree 577/02 and the established decision, the
Tribunal considers, by a majority, that it is a question that must be
decided in

[vertical text, left-hand side:] OFFICIAL USOthe opportunity to issue
the final pronouncement lawsuit. THUS IT IS DECIDED:

	May it be registered and notified.

				       [s. illegible]

				MARTA HERRERA

				   (with her vote)

              [s. illegible]

JORGE HECTOR DAMARCO

				                   [s. illegible]

				M. I. GARZON DE CONTE GRAND

Dr. Marta Herrera said :

	That in regards to the mode in which I comment on resolution fs.
176/180, it is not necessary for to me express an opinion in relation to
the clarification brought by the plaintiff.

[stamp:] COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION N-2

BOOK OF JUDGMENTS

Register no. [illegible]

BEFORE ME					       [s. illegible]

[illegible]					MARTA HERRERA

					[stamp:] [illegible] ORIGINAL

						[s. illegible]

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document on
the following persons by e-mail, except for the Ambassador of the
Argentine Republic who was served by Federal Express:

CARL B NELSON, JR.			JFFERY A MANLEY

Associate General Counsel			Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering

American Airlines, Inc.			2445 M Street, N.W.

1101 17th Street, N.W.			Washington, D.C. 20036

P:<PHONE_NUMBER>				P:<PHONE_NUMBER>

F:<PHONE_NUMBER>				F:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
						For United Airlines, Inc.

DAVID SHORT				DAVID L. VAUGHAN

Attorney, Reg. Affairs				Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Federal Express Corporation 			1200 19th Street, N.W.

3620 Hacks Cross Road			Washington, D.C. 20036

3rd Fl., Building B				P:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Memphis, TN 38125				F:<PHONE_NUMBER>

P:<PHONE_NUMBER>				  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
F:<PHONE_NUMBER>				For United Parcel Service Co.

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ROBERT P. SILVERGERG			HIS EXCELLENCY

Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP		JOSE O. BORDON

1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 120		Ambassador of the Argentine Republic

Washington, D.C. 20007			1600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.

P:<PHONE_NUMBER>				Washington, D.C. 20009

F:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ROBERT D. PAPKIN			GREGORY S. LEVINE

Squire Sanders & Dempsey, LLP		International Venture Partners, LLC

1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.		692 Madison Avenue, 3rd Fl.

Washington, D.C. 20004			New York, New York  10028

T:<PHONE_NUMBER>				T:<PHONE_NUMBER>

F:<PHONE_NUMBER>				F:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>			  HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
JOANNE W. YOUNG				JOHN R. BYERLY

Baker & Hostetler, LLP				Office of Aviation Negotiations

1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1100		Department of State

Washington, D.C.  20036				2201 C Street, N.W., Room 5331

T:<PHONE_NUMBER>					T:<PHONE_NUMBER>

F:<PHONE_NUMBER>					F:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
JOHN N. ROMANS					JEFF IRWIN

Rosen Weinhaus LLP					Office of Aviation Negotiations

40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor				Department of State

New York, New York  10005				2201 C State, N.W., Room 5331

T:<PHONE_NUMBER>					T:<PHONE_NUMBER>

F:<PHONE_NUMBER>					F:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
EDUARDO J. MICHEL				CAROLYN COLDREN

Ministry of Foreign Affairs				Office of International Aviation

Cancilleria						Department of Transportation

Esmeralda 1212, 7 Piso				400 7th Street, S.W.

1007, Buenos Aires, Argentina			Washington, D.C. 20590

T:  54-11-4819-7942					T:<PHONE_NUMBER>

F:  54-11-4819-7945					F:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
						___________/s/______________

							Katy N. Areas

Dated:  December 17, 2003

 PAGE

 PAGE   5

  FILENAME \p  L:\1300.JR\13005.03\DOT Escrow\Not.Filing.12.17.03.doc


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29762]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 619-164]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; The City of Santa Clara; Notice
of Meeting

    a. Project Name and Number: Bucks Creek Hydroelectric Project No.
619.
    b. Date and Time of Meeting: June 14, 2021; 1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.
    c. FERC Contact: Frank Winchell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    d. Purpose of Meeting: To discuss the final Programmatic Agreement
issued by the Commission for the relicensing of the Bucks Creek
Hydroelectric Project.
    e. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other
interested parties are invited to attend; however, participation will
be limited between the Commission's staff, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and California State Historic Preservation Office. Please
email the FERC contact noted above by June 9, 2021, to receive specific
instructions on how to attend. The meeting will be held remotely using
Microsoft Teams.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11665 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41118-41121]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17741]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83832; File No. SR-ICC-2018-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating To Amending the ICC Clearing
Rules Regarding Mark-to-Market Margin

August 13, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On June 13, 2018, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the ICC
Clearing Rules (the ``ICC Rules'') \3\ to more clearly characterize
Mark-to-Market Margin payments as settled-to-market rather than
collateralized-to-market. The proposed rule change was published in the
Federal Register on June 29, 2018.\4\ The Commission has not received
any comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Available at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_credit/ICE_Clear_Credit_Rules.pdf. Capitalized terms used herein but not
otherwise defined have the meaning set forth in the ICC Rules.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-83513 (June 25,
2018), 83 FR 30802 (June 29, 2018) (SR-ICC-2018-006) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would revise Chapters 4, 8, and 20 of the
ICC Rules to more clearly characterize Mark-to-Market Margin payments
as settlement payments (``settled-to-market'') rather than collateral
(``collateralized-to-market'').\5\ The proposed rule change would not
change the manner in which Mark-to-Market Margin is calculated, or
other current ICC operational practices.\6\ Rather, the proposed rule
change would revise terminology to further clarify the legal
characterization that payments of Mark-to-Market Margin represent
settlement rather than collateral payments.\7\ ICC states that these
clarifying changes are the result of ICC's analysis of the legal
characterization of Mark-to-Market Margin payments, at the request of
its Clearing Participants (``CPs'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under the settled-to-market model, the transfer of Mark-to-
Market Margin constitutes a settlement of the contract's outstanding
exposure, with the receiving party taking outright title to the
Mark-to-Market Margin and the transferring party retaining no rights
to such margin. Under the collateralized-to-market model, the
transfer of Mark-to-Market Margin constitutes a pledge of
collateral, such that the transferring party has a right to reclaim
the collateral and the receiving party has an obligation to return
the collateral. For further explanation of the settled-to-market
model and collateralized-to-market model, see Notice, 83 FR at
30803.
    \6\ Notice, 83 FR at 30803.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would revise Rule 401 to reference Mark-
to-Market Margin Balance, a new term that is defined in Rule 404 to
mean the aggregate amount of Mark-to-Market Margin paid or received.\9\
The new definition would be used in several calculations to describe
specifics pertaining to the Mark-to-Market Margin calculation.\10\ For
example, the proposed rule change would amend Rule 401(a), which
governs House Margin, to state that ICC calculates a net amount of
Mark-to-Market Margin by subtracting a CP's Mark-to-Market Margin
Balance from a CP's Mark-to-Market Margin Requirement.\11\ The proposed
rule change would make corresponding changes to reference

Mark-to-Market Margin Balance in Rule 401(b)(ii), which covers Client-
Related Mark-to-Market Margin.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Notice, 83 FR at 30803.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the proposed rule change would not modify the
current calculation of Mark-to-Market Margin, or other operational
practices, but, instead, would replace certain specifics relating to
ICC's Mark-to-Market Margin calculation with the new defined term Mark-
to-Market Margin Balance.\13\ In addition, the proposed rule change
would not change the manner in which Initial Margin is calculated,
posted and held.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposed rule change would revise Rule 401(g) to
specify that amounts ICC currently pays to CPs as interest on any Mark-
to-Market Margin would no longer be considered interest but instead
would be treated as a new payment obligation between ICC and CPs and
referred to as the ``price alignment amount.'' \15\ A price alignment
amount would be economically equivalent to the ``interest'' that ICC
pays or charges a CP for any net Mark-to-Market Margin transferred
between the parties under current Rule 401(g).\16\ Because the term
interest may be more typically associated with collateral, however, the
proposed rule change would refer to such an amount as price alignment
to avoid confusion over the proper characterization of Mark-to-Market
Margin as settlement payments.\17\ ICC states that such change would
not affect ICC's operations because ICC would continue to pay or charge
a CP an amount, which would serve the same purpose and would be
calculated identically, for any net Mark-to-Market Margin transferred
between the parties.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Notice, 83 FR at 30803.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also clarify in proposed revisions
to Rule 401(g) that the rate ICC may pay or charge a CP for a price
alignment amount on any Mark-to-Market Margin or interest on any
Initial Margin in the form of cash may be negative. This proposed
revision is intended by ICC to more clearly address the effect negative
market rate environments could have on how such amounts might be paid
or charged by ICC to CPs.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would add and clarify references to
amounts that ICC will continue to treat as collateral to avoid
confusion over the proper characterization of Mark-to-Market Margin
under the ICC Rules. Specifically, the proposed rule change would
update Rule 401(h) to provide that CPs may substitute, in accordance
with the ICC Procedures and applicable law, Eligible Margin only for an
amount of Initial Margin.\20\ CPs would no longer be able to substitute
Eligible Margin for Mark-to-Market Margin because under the proposed
rule change, ICC would take outright title to the Mark-to-Market Margin
and CPs would retain no substitution or other rights to such Mark-to-
Market Margin. The proposed changes to Rule 402, which governs ICC's
rights with respect to the use of margin, would exclude Mark-to-Market
Margin from subsections (a) and (b), would remove details relating to
Mark-to-Market Margin from subsection (b), and would specify subsection
(c)'s applicability to Initial Margin. Because ICC's rights with
respect to Mark-to-Market Margin would now be set out in Rule 402(e),
it would no longer be necessary to refer to Mark-to-Market Margin in
Rule 402(a) and (b). To avoid uncertainty, the proposed rule change
would clarify that the requirements set forth in Rule 406(c) regarding
collateral for Client-Related Positions apply to Initial Margin.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would similarly add and clarify references
to amounts that ICC would treat as settled to avoid confusion over the
proper characterization of Mark-to-Market Margin under the ICC Rules.
The proposed rule change would add language to Rule 402(e) to describe
ICC's rights with respect to Mark-to-Market Margin and more clearly
state that Mark-to-Market Margin payments constitute a settlement. The
proposed rule change would also update Rule 401(l) to refer to
settlement finality in relation to Mark-to-Market Margin.\22\ Further,
the proposed rule change would add new subsection (c) to Rule 404 to
define Mark-to-Market Margin Balance as a sum equal to the Mark-to-
Market Margin value transferred by the CP to ICC minus the Mark-to-
Market Margin value transferred by ICC to the CP.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change would make clarifications and
conforming changes to Chapters 8 and 20 of the ICC Rules. The proposed
rule change would revise Rule 801(a)(i), which describes how ICC
calculates a CP's Required Contribution to the General Guaranty Fund,
to refer to the transfer of Mark-to-Market Margin.\24\ This change
would characterize Mark-to-Market Margin as settled, rather than
collateral, by referring to the amount of Mark-to-Market Margin
transferred to ICC in respect of a defaulting CP's positions. The
proposed rule change would not change ICC's calculation of a CP's
Required Contribution, which would continue to take into account the
expected loss to ICC associated with a CP's default after the
application of Initial Margin and Mark-to-Market Margin.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Notice, 83 FR at 30803.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also replace, in the defined term
MTM in Rule 808, the phrase ``amount of MTM held by any Participant or
ICE Clear Credit'' with a conforming reference to the new defined term
Mark-to-Market Margin Balance.\26\ This proposed change would not alter
the operation of Rule 808, which describes how and when ICC would
implement Reduced Gains Distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would replace terminology in Rule 810(e)
that is commonly used in conjunction with collateral by changing the
words ``posted'' to ``transferred'' and removing the phrase ``and be
offset against''. This change would avoid confusion over the proper
characterization of Mark-to-Market Margin as settlement payments.\27\
This proposed change would not alter the operation of Rule 810, which
describes ICC's termination of clearing operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change would clarify in Rule 20-
605(c)(i)(B), which specifies the resources to be used to cover losses
with respect to Client-Related Positions, that ICC would use the
defaulting CP's Client-Related Mark-to-Market Margin, to the extent not
previously applied to pay Mark-to-Market Margin to other CPs.\28\
Because Mark-to-Market Margin would be settled with ICC, ICC would
obtain outright title to the Mark-to-Market Margin and would be able to
use the Mark-to-Market Margin for purposes other than collateralizing a
CP's position, in accordance with ICC's Rules and applicable regulatory
requirements. The proposed rule change would make this point clear and
therefore clarify that Mark-to-Market Margin payments constitute
settlement rather than collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Notice, 83 FR at 30803.

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

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\29\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
\30\ and Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2) and 17Ad-22(d)(1) thereunder.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2), (d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well
as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposed rule change would revise Chapters
4, 8, and 20 of the ICC Rules to more clearly characterize Mark-to-
Market Margin payments as settlement payments rather than collateral.
To facilitate this characterization, the proposed rule change would
introduce a new definition, Mark-to-Market Margin Balance, and a new
concept, price alignment amount. Moreover, the proposed rule change
would update the terminology used in certain rules, and the application
of certain rules to Mark-to-Market Margin, in light of the
characterization of Mark-to-Market Margin payments as settlement
payments rather than collateral. The proposed rule change would not
change the manner in which Mark-to-Market Margin is calculated, or
other current ICC operational practices.
    The Commission believes that by clarifying the treatment of Mark-
to-Market Margin payments, the proposed rule change would help ensure
that Mark-to-Market margin is treated as settled payments rather than
collateral, consistent with ICC's intention. In doing so, the
Commission further believes the proposed rule change would clarify that
ICC has all rights and outright title to such Mark-to-Market Margin.
The Commission believes the proposed rule change would clarify ICC's
interest in and rights to Mark-to-Market Margin, thereby supporting
ICC's ability to use Mark-to-Market Margin to cover credit and market
losses.
    The Commission further believes that in this regard the proposed
rule change would remove potential confusion regarding the treatment of
Mark-to-Market Margin, thereby helping to improve the operation and
effectiveness of ICC's margin system. Given that an effective margin
system is necessary to manage ICC's credit exposures to its CPs and the
risks associated with clearing security based swap-related portfolios,
the Commission believes that the proposed rule change would help
improve ICC's ability to avoid the losses that could result from the
mismanagement of credit exposures and the risks associated with
clearing security based swap-related portfolios. Because such losses
could disrupt ICC's ability to promptly and accurately clear security
based swap transactions, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change, by improving the operation and effectiveness of ICC's margin
system, would thereby help promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions.
    Similarly, given that mismanagement of ICC's credit exposures to
its CPs and the risks associated with clearing security based swap-
related portfolios could cause ICC to realize losses on such portfolios
and threaten ICC's ability to operate, thereby threatening access to
securities and funds in ICC's control, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change would help assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the ICC or for which
it is responsible. Finally, for both of these reasons, the Commission
believes the Framework would, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change would
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICC's
custody and control, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest, consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2)

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use
margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under
normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to
set margin requirements and review such margin requirements and the
related risk-based models and parameters at least monthly.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposed rule change would revise Chapters
4, 8, and 20 of the ICC Rules to more clearly characterize Mark-to-
Market Margin payments as settlement payments rather than collateral.
Specifically, the Proposed Rule Change would revise Rule 401 to
reference Mark-to-Market Margin Balance, a new term that is defined in
Rule 404 to mean the aggregate amount of Mark-to-Market Margin paid or
received. The new definition would be used in Rule 401(a), regarding
House Margin, which would be revised to state that ICC calculates a net
amount of Mark-to-Market Margin by subtracting a CP's Mark-to-Market
Margin Balance from a CP's Mark-to-Market Margin Requirement. Moreover,
under the proposed revised Rule 401(g), ICC would pay or charge a CP
price alignment, which would be economically equivalent to interest, on
any Mark-to-Market Margin and interest on any cash Initial Margin at a
rate that may be negative. The proposed rule change would not modify
the current calculation of Mark-to-Market Margin, or other operational
practices, but, instead, would replace certain specifics relating to
ICC's Mark-to-Market Margin calculation with the new defined term Mark-
to-Market Margin Balance.
    The Commission believes that by clarifying the treatment of Mark-
to-Market Margin payments, the proposed rule change would help ensure
that Mark-to-Market margin is treated as settled payments rather than
collateral. The Commission believes that in this regard the proposed
rule change would help ensure that the margin system is operating
consistently for all CPs and in a manner that is consistent with ICC's
view on the treatment of Mark-to-Market Margin by confirming that all
Mark-to-Market Margin would be treated as settlement payments. In doing
so, the Commission further believes the proposed rule change would
clarify that ICC has all rights and outright title to such Mark-to-
Market Margin. The Commission believes the proposed rule change would
thereby clarify ICC's interest in and rights to Mark-to-Market Margin,
thereby supporting ICC's ability to use Mark-to-Market to cover credit
and market losses. The Commission therefore believes the proposed rule
change would help ICC maintain and

enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use
margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under
normal market conditions.
    Moreover, as noted above, the proposed rule change resulted from a
request by CPs for ICC to confirm it treats Mark-to-Market Margin as
settlement payments. CPs therefore may hesitate to post Mark-to-Market
Margin if ICC does not consistently treat such margin as settlement
payments. Thus, the Commission believes the proposed rule change would
help ICC enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants
under normal market conditions.
    Therefore, for the above reasons the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1)

    Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
provide for a well-founded, transparent, and enforceable legal
framework for each aspect of its activities in all relevant
jurisdictions.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed rule change would revise Chapters
4, 8, and 20 of the ICC Rules to more clearly characterize Mark-to-
Market Margin payments as settlement payments rather than collateral.
The proposed rule change would also revise terminology to further
clarify the legal characterization that payments of Mark-to-Market
Margin represent settlement rather than collateral payments. These
clarifying changes are the result of ICC's analysis of the legal
characterization of Mark-to-Market Margin payments, at the request of
its CPs.
    Thus, ICC intends to treat Mark-to-Market Margin payments as
settled rather than collateral, and the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change's clarifications and additions would help ensure
that ICC's margin system operates consistently with this intention. The
Commission further believes that the proposed rule change would help
ensure that the margin system is operating consistently for all CPs by
confirming that all Mark-to-Market Margin would be treated as
settlement payments. In ensuring the consistent treatment of Mark-to-
Market Margin, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
would help ensure that the policies and procedures underlying ICC's
margin system provide a well-founded, transparent, and enforceable
legal framework.
    Therefore, for the above reasons the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in
particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
\38\ and Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2) and 17Ad-22(d)(1) thereunder.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2), (d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\40\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2018-006) be, and hereby is,
approved.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \41\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17741 Filed 8-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58794-58795]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23861]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87407; File No. SR-FINRA-2019-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for
Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 5110 (Corporate
Financing Rule--Underwriting Terms and Arrangements) To Make
Substantive, Organizational and Terminology Changes, as Modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1

October 28, 2019.
    On April 11, 2019, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 5110
(Corporate Financing Rule--Underwriting Terms and Arrangements)
(``Rule'' or Rule 5110) to make substantive, organizational and
terminology changes to the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on May 1, 2019.\3\ On June 12, 2019, the Commission extended
to July 30, 2019, the time period in which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission received six comment letters on the
proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85715 (April 25,
2019), 84 FR 18592 (May 1, 2019) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-86091 (June 12,
2019), 84 FR 28371 (June 18, 2019).
    \5\ See letter from Suzanne Rothwell, Managing Member, Rothwell
Consulting LLC, to Secretary, Commission, dated May 14, 2019; letter
from Stuart J. Kaswell, Esq., to Vanessa Countryman, Acting
Director, Commission, dated May 17, 2019; letter from Eversheds
Sutherland (US) LLP, on behalf of the Committee of Annuity Insurers,
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated May 21, 2019;
letter from Aseel Rabie, Managing Director and Associate General
Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, to
Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission, dated May 30, 2019
(``SIFMA''); letter from Robert E. Buckholz, Chair, Federal
Regulation of Securities Committee, ABA Business Law Section,
American Bar Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary,
Commission, dated May 30, 2019; letter from Davis Polk & Wardwell
LLP, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission, dated June
5, 2019.

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

    On July 11, 2019, FINRA responded to the comments and filed Partial
Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\6\ On July 29, 2019, the Commission
instituted proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act \7\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\8\ The Commission received three comment letters in response to
the Order Instituting Proceedings.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See letter from Jeanette Wingler, Associate General Counsel,
FINRA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated July 11,
2019. Partial Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.finra.org/industry/rule-filings/sr-finra-2019-012.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86509 (July 29,
2019), 84 FR 37921 (Aug. 2, 2019).
    \9\ See letter from Hardy Callcott and Joseph McLaughlin, to
Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated August 14, 2019;
letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Law Office of Stuart J. Kaswell, LLC,
to Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary, Commission, dated August
16, 2019; and letter from Aseel Rabie, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 23, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act \10\ provides that, after
initiating disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180
days after the date of publication of notice of the filing of the
proposed rule change. The Commission may, however, extend the period
for issuing an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change
by not more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer
period is appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination.
The proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the
Federal Register.\11\ The 180th day after publication of the notice of
the filing of the proposed rule change in the Federal Register is
October 28, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change, as amended by Partial Amendment No.1, comment
letters, and FINRA's submission.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act, designates December 27, 2019, as the date by which the
Commission shall approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23861 Filed 10-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P