[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49293-49299]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17668]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78382; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Affiliated Entities

July 21, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 15, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Preface, Section B and Section
II of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to permit certain affiliated
market participants to aggregate volume and qualify for various pricing
incentives in the Pricing Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/ com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to permit certain
affiliated market participants to aggregate volume and qualify for
various pricing incentives in the Pricing Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Section B, Customer
\3\ Rebates and at Section II, Multiply-Listed Options Fees,\4\ to
offer

Affiliated Entities certain rebate and fee incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation which is not for
the account of a broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)).
    \4\ These fees include options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs
and indexes which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliated Entity
    The Exchange proposes to add three definitions to the Preface of
the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange proposes to define the terms
``Appointed MM,'' ``Appointed OFP,'' and ``Affiliated Entity.'' The
Exchange proposes to define the term ``Appointed MM'' as a Phlx Market
Maker \5\ or Specialist \6\ who has been appointed by an Order Flow
Provider (``OFP'') for purposes of qualifying as an Affiliated Entity.
An OFP is a member or member organization that submits orders, as agent
or principal, to the Exchange.\7\ The Exchange proposes to define the
term ``Appointed OFP'' as an OFP who has been appointed by a Phlx
Market Maker or Specialist for purposes of qualifying as an Affiliated
Entity. The Exchange proposes to define the term ``Affiliated Entity''
as a relationship between an Appointed MM and an Appointed OFP for
purposes of qualifying for certain pricing as specified in the Pricing
Schedule. In order to become an Affiliated Entity, Market Makers or
Specialists, and OFPs will be required to send an email to the Exchange
to appoint their counterpart, at least 3 business days prior to the
last day of the month to qualify for the next month.\8\ For example,
with this proposal, market participants may submit emails to the
Exchange to become Affiliated Entities eligible to qualify for
discounted pricing starting August 1, 2016, provided the emails are
sent at least 3 business days prior to the first business day of August
2016. The Exchange will acknowledge receipt of the emails and specify
the date the Affiliated Entity would be eligible to qualify for
applicable pricing, as specified in the Pricing Schedule. Each
Affiliated Entity relationship will commence on the 1st of a month and
may not be terminated prior to the end of any month. An Affiliated
Entity relationship will terminate after a one (1) year period, unless
either party terminates earlier in writing by sending an email to the
Exchange at least 3 business days prior to the last day of the month to
terminate for the next month. Affiliated Entity relationships must be
renewed annually. For example, if the start date of the Affiliated
Entity relationship is August 1, 2016, the counterparties may determine
to commence a new relationship as of August 1, 2017 by sending two new
emails by July 27, 2017 (3 business days prior to the end of the
month). Members and member organizations under Common Ownership \9\ may
not qualify as a counterparty comprising an Affiliated Entity. Each
member or member organization may qualify for only one (1) Affiliated
Entity relationship at any given time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Market Maker'' will be utilized to describe fees
and rebates applicable to Registered Options Traders (``ROTs''),
Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs''), Remote Streaming Quote Traders
(``RSQTs''). An ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) is a regular
member or a foreign currency options participant of the Exchange
located on the trading floor who has received permission from the
Exchange to trade in options for his own account. A ROT includes
SQTs and RSQTs as well as on and off-floor ROTS. An SQT is defined
in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received
permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is assigned.
An RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that
is a member affiliated with an RSQTO with no physical trading floor
presence who has received permission from the Exchange to generate
and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such
RSQT has been assigned. A Remote Streaming Quote Trader Organization
or ``RSQTO,'' which may also be referred to as a Remote Market
Making Organization (``RMO''), is a member organization in good
standing that satisfies the RSQTO readiness requirements in Rule
507(a). RSQTs may also be referred to as Remote Market Markers
(``RMMs'').
    \6\ The term ``Specialist'' shall apply to the account of a
Specialist (as defined in Exchange Rule 1020(a)). A Specialist is an
Exchange member who is registered as an options specialist pursuant
to Rule 501(a). An options Specialist includes a Remote Specialist
which is defined as an options specialist in one or more classes
that does not have a physical presence on an Exchange floor and is
approved by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 501.
    \7\ Specialist and Market Makers submitting quotes to the
Exchange shall not be considered Appointed OFPs for the purpose of
becoming an Affiliated Entity.
    \8\ The Exchange shall issue an Options Trader Alert specifying
the email address and details required to apply to become an
Affiliated Entity.
    \9\ The term ``Common Ownership'' shall mean members or member
organizations under 75% common ownership or control. Phlx members or
member organizations that are under 75% common ownership or control
shall be considered under Common Ownership for purposes of pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, an Affiliated Entity shall be eligible to aggregate
their volume for purposes of qualifying for certain pricing specified
in the Pricing Schedule, as described below.
Section B--Customer Rebates
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section B, entitled ``Customer
Rebate Program'' to permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate their
Customer volume for purposes of calculating Customer Rebate Tiers and
receiving rebates. Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate
Program consisting of the following five tiers that pay Customer
rebates on three Categories, A, B and C, of transactions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Percentage thresholds of
                                     national customer volume in
                                      multiply-listed equity and
       Customer rebate tiers             ETF Options classes,       Category A      Category B      Category C
                                        excluding SPY Options
                                              (monthly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1.............................  0.00%-0.60%................           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
Tier 2.............................  Above 0.60%-1.10%..........           $0.10           $0.10           $0.17
Tier 3.............................  Above 1.10%-1.60%..........           $0.15           $0.12           $0.17
Tier 4.............................  Above 1.60%-2.50%..........           $0.20           $0.16           $0.22
Tier 5.............................  Above 2.50%................           $0.21           $0.17           $0.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Phlx member qualifies for a certain rebate tier based on the
percentage of total national customer volume in multiply-listed options
that it transacts monthly on Phlx. The Exchange calculates Customer
volume in Multiply Listed Options by totaling electronically-delivered
and executed volume, excluding volume associated with electronic
Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Orders, as defined in Exchange
Rule 1080(o).\10\ The Exchange proposes to incentivize certain members
and member organizations, who are not under Common Ownership, to enter
into an Affiliated Entity relationship for the purpose of aggregating
Customer volume to qualify for Section B Customer Rebates. By
aggregating volume, the counterparties comprising the Affiliated Entity
are offered an opportunity to qualify for higher rebates, thereby
lowering costs and encouraging members to send more order flow.
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing

more order flow to the marketplace and more trading opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In calculating electronically-delivered and executed
Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options, the numerator of the
equation includes all electronically-delivered and executed Customer
volume in Multiply Listed Options. The denominator of that equation
includes national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF
options volume, excluding SPY. See Section B of the Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affiliated Entities may aggregate Customer volume as between the
Appointed MM and Appointed OFP to qualify for any of the five tiers of
Customer Rebates that pay Category, A, B or C rebates on transactions.
An Appointed OFP would be eligible to receive the additional $0.02 per
contract Category A and B rebate and the additional $0.03 per contract
Category C rebate, paid in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3
rebate, currently available to a Specialist or Market Maker or its
member or member organization affiliate under Common Ownership,
provided the Appointed MM has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap, as
defined in Section II.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the language in Section B to clarify
the applicability of the $0.02 per contract rebate in addition to
Categories A and B and the $0.03 per contract rebate in addition to
Category C, applicable to Tiers 2 and 3. The Exchange proposes to
relocate certain language and add language to amend the sentence as
follows: ``The Exchange will pay a $0.02 per contract Category A and B
rebate and a $0.03 per contract Category C rebate in addition to the
applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebate, provided the Specialist, Market Maker
or Appointed MM has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap as defined in
Section II, to: (1) A Specialist or Market Maker who is not under
Common Ownership or is not a party of an Affiliated Entity; or (2) an
OFP member or member organization affiliate under Common Ownership; or
(3) an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity.''
    The Exchange's proposal would incentivize certain members and
member organizations, which are not under Common Ownership, to enter
into an Affiliated Entity relationship for the purpose of aggregating
Customer volume to qualify the Appointed OFP for Customer Rebates in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule. Phlx members and member
organizations that are under 75% common ownership or control will be
considered under Common Ownership and therefore by definition are not
eligible to enter an Affiliated Entity relationship.
Section II--Options Transaction Charge
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section II of the Pricing Schedule
to offer members and member organizations that are Appointed OFPs of
Affiliated Entities transacting non-Customer orders an opportunity to
reduce non-Penny Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charges. Today,
the Exchange assesses a Professional,\11\ Broker-Dealer \12\ and Firm
\13\ a non-Penny Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charge of $0.75
per contract and a Specialist and Market Maker a $0.25 per contract
non-Penny Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charge. The Exchange
proposes to provide an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity with an
opportunity to lower the Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm non-Penny
Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charge from $0.75 to $0.60 per
contract provided the Affiliated Entity qualifies for Customer Rebate
Tiers 4 \14\ or 5 \15\ in Section B of the Pricing Schedule. The
Exchange proposes to provide an Appointed MM of an Affiliated Entity
with an opportunity to lower the Specialist and Market Maker non-Penny
Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charge from $0.25 to $0.23 per
contract provided the Affiliated Entity qualifies for Customer Rebate
Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \12\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \13\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \14\ The Tier 4 Customer Rebate in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule requires Customer volume above 1.60% to 2.50% of National
Customer Volume in Multiply Listed Equity and ETF Options, excluding
SPY. This rebate tier pays a Category A $0.20 rebate, a Category B
$0.16 rebate and a Category C $0.22 rebate.
    \15\ The Tier 5 Customer Rebate in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule requires Customer volume above 2.50% of National Customer
Volume in Multiply Listed Equity and ETF Options, excluding SPY.
This rebate tier pays a Category A $0.21 rebate, a Category B $0.17
rebate and a Category C $0.22 rebate.
    \16\ Today, any member or member organization under Common
Ownership with another member or member organization that qualifies
for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule is assessed either a $0.23 or $0.60 per contract non-Penny
Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would incentivize certain members and
member organizations, who are not under Common Ownership, to enter into
an Affiliated Entity relationship for the purpose of aggregating
Customer volume to qualify for reduced non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charges.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the
Act,\18\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using its facilities, and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 29, 2005),
70 FR 37496 at 37499 (File No. S7-10-04) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\20\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\21\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \21\ See id. at 534-535.
    \22\ See id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .'' \23\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes

that these views apply with equal force to the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Commission
at Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 at 74782-74783
(December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Preface of the Pricing
Schedule to add the definitions of ``Appointed MM,'' ``Appointed OFP''
and ``Affiliated Entity'' is reasonable because the Exchange is
proposing to identify the applicable market participants that may
qualify to aggregate volume as an Affiliated Entity. Further the
Exchange seeks to make clear the manner in which members and member
organizations may participate on the Exchange as Affiliated Entities by
setting timeframes for communicating agreements among market
participants and terms of early termination. The Exchange also clearly
states that no member or member organization under Common Ownership may
become a counterparty to an Affiliated Entity. Any Phlx member or
member organization who meets the definition of Common Ownership shall
not be eligible to become an Affiliated Entity. The Exchange believes
that these terms are reasonable because they would allow members or
member organizations to elect to become a counterparty to an Affiliated
Entity, provided they are not under Common Ownership.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Preface of the Pricing
Schedule to add the definitions of ``Appointed MM,'' ``Appointed OFP''
and ``Affiliated Entity'' is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because all member or members that are not under Common Ownership by
definition may choose to enter into an Affiliated Entity relationship.
Section B Customer Rebates
    The Exchange's proposal to permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate
Customer volume for purposes of qualifying Appointed OFPs for Section B
Customer Rebates is reasonable because it will attract additional
Customer order flow to the Exchange. Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Market Makers and Specialists. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Appointed OFPs directing order flow to the
Exchange may be eligible to qualify for a Customer Rebate or a higher
Customer Rebate tier, with this proposal, as a result of aggregating
volume with an Appointed MM and thereby qualifying for higher Customer
Rebates. Permitting members and member organizations to affiliate for
purposes of qualifying for Section B Customer Rebates may also
encourage the counterparties that comprise the Affiliated Entities to
incentivize each other to attract and seek to execute more Customer
volume on Phlx. In turn, market participants would benefit from the
increased liquidity with which to interact and potentially tighter
spreads on orders. Overall, incentivizing market participants with
increased opportunities to earn higher Customer rebates may increase
the quality of the liquidity available on Phlx.
    The Exchange's proposal to permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate
Customer volume for purposes of qualifying Appointed OFPs for Section B
Customer rebates is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
all Phlx members and member organizations, other than those that meet
the definition of Common Ownership, may elect to become an Affiliated
Entity as either an Appointed MM or an Appointed OFP.\24\ Also, each
member or member organization may participate in only one Affiliated
Entity relationship at a given time, which imposes a measure of
exclusivity among market participants, allowing each party to rely on
the other's executed Customer volume on Phlx to receive a corresponding
benefit in terms of a higher rebate. Any market participant that by
definition is not under Common Ownership may elect to become a
counterparty of an Affiliated Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Both members must elect each other to become an Affiliated
Entity for one year. Participation is effected by an agreement of
both parties that have provided proper notification to the Exchange.
A party may elect to terminate the agreement at any time prior to
one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to exclude members and member organizations
that are under Common Ownership from qualifying as an Affiliated Entity
is reasonable because members and member organizations under Common
Ownership may aggregate volume today for purposes of Section B Customer
Rebates.\25\ The Exchange's proposal to exclude members and member
organizations that by definition are under Common Ownership from
qualifying as an Affiliated Entity is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will apply all qualifications in a
uniform manner when approving Affiliated Entities. Excluding members
and member organizations that by definition are under Common Ownership
from also qualifying as an Affiliated Entity is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because they are able to aggregate volume today
and qualify for Customer Rebates in Section B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II--Options Transaction Charges
    The Exchange's proposal to amend note 3 of Section II of the
Pricing Schedule to offer members and member organizations that are
Affiliated Entities an opportunity to reduce non-Customer non-Penny
Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charges is reasonable because the
Exchange believes it will encourage these market participants to
transact a greater amount of Customer volume on Phlx. The Exchange's
proposal to permit Appointed OFPs of Affiliated Entities to qualify for
the reduced non-Penny Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charges by
qualifying for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule will attract additional Customer order flow to the Exchange.
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers and Specialists. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause a corresponding increase
in order flow from other market participants. Appointed OFPs directing
order flow to the Exchange may be eligible to qualify for these
Customer rebate tiers as a result of aggregating volume with another
appointed member and benefit from reduced non-Penny Pilot electronic
Options Transaction Charges. Permitting members and member
organizations to affiliate for purposes of qualifying for Section B
Customer rebates may also encourage the counterparties of an Affiliated
Entity to incentivize each other to attract and seek to execute more
Customer volume on Phlx. The Affiliated Entity relationship would
permit the Appointed OFP to benefit from reduced non-Penny Pilot
electronic Options Transaction Charges. In turn, market participants
would benefit from the increased liquidity with which to interact and
potentially tighter spreads on orders. The Exchange believes that
lowering these fees for electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction
Charges, as compared to Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges, is
reasonable because today, Penny Pilot Options are the most traded and
more liquid than Non-Penny Pilot Options. Electronic Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Charges are lower for Professionals, Broker-Dealers
and Firms because of the demand in the marketplace. The Exchange is
offering Appointed OFPs the opportunity to reduce the higher electronic
non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for

Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms with this incentive, provided
they qualify for the reduced non-Penny Pilot electronic Options
Transaction Charges by qualifying for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend note 3 of Section II of the
Pricing Schedule to offer members and member organizations that are
Affiliated Entities an opportunity to reduce non-Customer non-Penny
Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charges is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess Appointed OFPs
a reduced Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Options
Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange does not
assess Customers an electronic Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny
Pilot Options because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Customer liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Specialists and Market Makers are assessed lower electronic Options
Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options as compared to
Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms because they have obligations
to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply
to other market participants.\26\ They have obligations to make
continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with a course of dealings. The proposed differentiation as
between Customers, Specialists and Market Makers and other market
participants recognizes the differing contributions made to the
liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market
participants. The Exchange believes that offering Appointed OFPs an
opportunity to lower fees for electronic non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charges as compared to Penny Pilot Options Transaction
Charges is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange seeks to offer lower fees to those market participants paying
the highest electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend note 4 of Section II of the
Pricing Schedule to offer Appointed MMs of an Affiliated Entity an
opportunity to reduce the Specialist and Marker Maker electronic non-
Penny Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charges is reasonable
because today the Exchange offers all market participants, excluding
Customers who are not assessed a non-Penny Pilot electronic Options
Transaction Charges, a means to reduce electronic Options Transaction
Charges by qualifying for a Customer Rebate in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule. Even with the reduced rate for Professionals, Broker-Dealers
and Firms of $0.60 per contract, Specialists and Market Makers will
continue to be assessed the lowest electronic Options Transaction
Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options because they have obligations to the
market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to
other market participants.\27\ The Exchange believes that offering
Appointed MMs an opportunity to benefit from lower fees for electronic
non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges is reasonable because the
reduced electronic non-Penny Pilot will be consistent with the current
lower reduced Penny Pilot Options Transaction charges ($0.25 vs. $0.22
per contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange's proposal to amend note 4 of Section II of the
Pricing Schedule to offer Appointed MMs of an Affiliated Entity an
opportunity to reduce the Specialist and Marker Maker electronic non-
Penny Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charges is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange seeks to incentivize
Specialists and Market Makers to increase their activity on Phlx and in
turn facilitate tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and
regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\28\ They have obligations to make continuous markets,
engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
of dealings. The Exchange believes that offering Appointed MMs the
opportunity to receive this additional benefit will continue to benefit
the marketplace as described herein. The Exchange believes that
lowering electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges as
compared to electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is
offering market participants the opportunity to reduce the higher
electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Specialists
and Market Makers with this incentive and permitting Appointed MMs to
also receive this discount, provided they qualify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe that permitting counterparties to an Affiliated Entity to
aggregate volume to qualify for certain rebates and reduced fees will
impose any undue burden on competition, as discussed below.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many
sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do
send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or
rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and
still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market
forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive
with the fee structures at other trading platforms.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee

changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that other
options markets have similar incentives in place to attract volume to
their markets.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See NYSE MKT LLC's (``NYSE Amex'') pricing at NYSE Amex
Options Fee Schedule). NYSE Amex permits aggregation of volume to
qualify for the Amex Customer Engagement or ACE Program. See Bats
BZX Exchange, Inc.'s (``BZX'') fee schedule. BZX permits aggregation
of volume to qualify for tiered pricing. See the Chicago Board
Options Exchange Incorporated (``CBOE'') Fees Schedule. CBOE permits
aggregation of volume to qualify for credits available under an
Affiliated Volume Plan or ``AVP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Preface of the Pricing
Schedule to add the definitions of ``Appointed MM,'' ``Appointed OFP''
and ``Affiliated Entity'' does not impose an undue burden on
competition because these definitions apply to all members and member
organizations uniformly.
Section B Customer Rebates
    In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange does not believe
that its proposal to permit counterparties of an Affiliated Entity to
aggregate Customer volume for purposes of qualifying for Section B
Customer Rebates imposes an undue burden on intra-market competition
because all Phlx members and member organizations, other than those
under Common Ownership, may become an Affiliated Entity as either an
Appointed MM or an Appointed OFP. Also, each Phlx member or member
organization may participate in only one Affiliated Entity relationship
at a given time, which imposes a measure of exclusivity among market
participants, allowing each party to rely on the other's executed
Customer volume on Phlx to receive a corresponding benefit in terms of
a higher rebate. The Exchange will apply all qualifications in a
uniform manner to all market participants that elect to become
counterparties of an Affiliated Entity. Any market participant that is
by definition a member or member organization under Common Ownership
may not become a counterparty of an Affiliated Entity.
    Market Makers and Specialists are valuable market participants that
provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other market
participants do not incur. Market Makers and Specialists are subject to
burdensome quoting obligations \30\ to the market that do not apply to
other market participants. Incentivizing these market participants to
execute Customer volume on Phlx may result in tighter spreads. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Appointed OFPs directing order flow to the Exchange may be eligible to
qualify for a Customer Rebate or a higher Customer Rebate tier, with
this proposal, as a result of aggregating volume with an Appointed MM
and thereby qualifying for higher Customer Rebates. Permitting members
and member organizations to affiliate for purposes of qualifying for
Section B Customer Rebates may also encourage the counterparties that
comprise the Affiliated Entities to incentivize each other to attract
and seek to execute more Customer volume on Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See note 26 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to exclude members and member organizations
that are under Common Ownership from becoming an Affiliated Entity does
not impose and [sic] undue burden on intra-market competition because
member and member organizations under Common Ownership may aggregate
volume today for purposes of qualifying for Customer Rebates.
Section II--Options Transaction Charges
    The Exchange's proposal to amend note 3 of Section II of the
Pricing Schedule to offer Appointed OFPs of Affiliated Entities an
opportunity to reduce non-Customer non-Penny Pilot electronic Options
Transaction Charges does not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because the Exchange will assess Appointed OFPs a reduced
Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Options Transaction
Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange does not assess
Customers an electronic Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot
Options because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange
for the benefit of all market participants. Customer liquidity benefits
all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Specialists and Market Makers are assessed lower
electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options as
compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms because they have
obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally
do not apply to other market participants.\31\ They have obligations to
make continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with a course of dealings. The proposed differentiation as
between Customers, Specialists and Market Makers and other market
participants recognizes the differing contributions made to the
liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market
participants. The Exchange will apply all qualifications for the
reduced rate in a uniform manner. The Exchange believes that lowering
these fees for electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges
as compared to electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges does
not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the
Exchange seeks to offer lower fees to those market participants paying
the highest electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See note 26 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend note 4 of Section II of the
Pricing Schedule to offer Appointed MMs of Affiliated Entities an
opportunity to reduce non-Customer electronic non-Penny Pilot
electronic Options Transaction Charges does not impose an undue burden
on intra-market competition because the Exchange seeks to incentivize
Specialists and Market Makers to increase their activity on Phlx and in
turn facilitate tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Specialists and Market have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\32\ They have obligations to make continuous markets,
engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
of dealings. The Exchange believes that permitting Affiliated [sic] MMs
to receive this additional benefit will continue to benefit the market
place as

described herein. The Exchange believes that lowering these fees for
electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges as compared to
Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges does not impose an undue burden
on intra-market competition because the electronic non-Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Charges is higher ($0.25 vs. $0.22 per contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See note 26 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-62 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-62. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-62 and should be
submitted on or before August 17, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17668 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS> DISTRIBUTION Page __ 1_ of _ 1_

Project Name: 304m National Strategy TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 02/ 02/ 04 Time: 12: 15 pm Company Name: Ecoelectrica Lng and Cogeneration Contact Name: Ivette Lavorde Phone No.: ( 787) 836 2740 office ( 787) 487 6003 cell Name: Cortney Itle Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : PCB Discharge in February 2000 TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN I called Ivette Lavorde from the Ecoelectrica LNG and Cogeneration facility in Penuelas, Puerto Rico. This facility reports pollutant discharges to EPA's Permit Compliance System under SIC code 4911 ( Steam Electric Power Generation). The facility reported a discharge of Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs) in February 2000 that was uncharacteristic of the other PCBs discharges reported by this facility in 2000. All other PCB discharges were below the detection limit; the discharge in February was at the detection limit. The February PCB discharge resulted in this facility having the largest toxic weighted pound equivalents for the Steam Electric Power Generation point source category.

Ms. Lavorde told me that the February 2000 PCB discharge was reported correctly to PCS. However, she believes that there was a laboratory error with that sample. Ms. Lavorde stated that the Ecoelectrica facility does not discharge any PCBs.

Because of this information, I will request that the 2000 PCB discharge at the Ecoelectrica facility be set to zero in the PCS database that ERG is using in the national strategies analysis.


Summary of EPA Meeting with

National Mining Association (NMA)

July 19, 2007

On Monday, June 11, 2007, representatives from the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) met with NMA to discuss their comments on the Definition of Solid
Waste Rulemaking. NMA expressed concern about the proposed
rulemaking’s effect on other existing exclusions, expressed their
opinion that there is no need to codify the legitimacy criteria and
suggested that EPA require “due diligence” for reasonable efforts.

Matt Hale		Environmental Protection Agency

Marybeth Sheridan	Environmental Protection Agency

Charlotte Mooney	Environmental Protection Agency


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12424-12427]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0636; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-037-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R
airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes; and Model A310-204 and -304 airplanes; powered by General
Electric (GE) CF6-80C2 series engines. The NPRM proposed to require
installing a shunt of the rotary selector (introducing an auto-relight
function). The NPRM was prompted by reports of two single-engine
flameout events during inclement weather. This action revises the NPRM
by adding an additional wiring modification to a certain circuit
breaker panel. We are proposing this AD to prevent a long engine
restart sequence after a non-selection of continuous relight by the
crew and a flameout event of both engines, which could result in
reduced controllability of the airplane, especially at low altitude.
Since these actions impose an additional burden over that

proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the
public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

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-2012-
0636; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0636;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-037-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the
specified products, which was published in the Federal Register on June
18, 2012 (77 FR 36211). The NPRM proposed to require actions intended
to address the unsafe condition for the products listed above.
    Since the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) was issued, we have
determined it is necessary to require an additional wiring modification
of the circuit breaker panel, 105VU, to make it possible to complete
the modification of the shunt of the rotary selector (introducing an
auto-relight function).

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-74-6003, Revision
05, dated May 23, 2013; and Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-74-2003,
Revision 05, dated May 23, 2013. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European
Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011-0113, dated June
17, 2011.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments received on the NPRM (77
FR 36211, June 18, 2012). The Air Line Pilots Association,
International, supported the NPRM and its compliance time.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) Based on
Safety Record

    Based on its safety record, FedEx requested withdrawal of the NPRM
(77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012). FedEx stated that the impact of the NPRM
solely falls on its company; therefore, its exemplary safety record,
superior pilot training, and performance standards should be
significant factors in the FAA's decision regarding the need for the
proposed AD.
    FedEx stated that a review of operational events on past and
present airplanes operated by FedEx revealed that there are no known
occurrences of the inclement weather flameouts that are the primary
driver of the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012). In addition, FedEx
stated that it has fully implemented the full authority digital engine
control (FADEC) software upgrades required by AD 2007-21-06, Amendment
39-15224 (72 FR 57848, October 11, 2007), on certain engines in its
fleet. FedEx stated that the latest GE guidance indicates that the
worldwide rate of engine flameouts has decreased significantly in the
last several years and that the rate associated with full authority
digital engine control (FADEC) engine models in particular has shown a
significant decline and is now well below that of the power management
control fleet.
    We disagree with FedEx's request. We have received reports of two
single-engine flameout events during inclement weather. We consider
this to be an unsafe condition that could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane, especially at low altitude. Also, not
all affected airplanes have FADEC-controlled engines installed.
    We consider a design solution that does not require pilot action to
be a more robust mitigating action to address an unsafe condition. We
have determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuing this SNPRM
to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Affected
operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this SNPRM by
submitting data substantiating that the change would provide an
acceptable level of safety.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) Based on
Operational Impact

    FedEx also requested withdrawal of the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18,
2012) based on operational impact. FedEx stated that the modifications
required by the proposed AD would affect the interface between the
flight crew and the airplane, and would alter the pilot's degree of
control in the event of an engine event. FedEx stated that the
modification is intended to ensure rapid relight of the engine
following a flameout in the event that the crew does not correctly
follow procedures and manually select the continuous relight function
when entering an inclement

weather environment. FedEx stated that it is consistently following
proper procedures and has trained crews accordingly.
    In addition, FedEx stated that there does not appear to be any
concurrent requirement for the CF6-80C2-powered Model MD-11 airplane in
the FedEx fleet. The current MD-11 flight manual provides for an
optional ice detection system that automatically switches continuous
relight on in the case of icing conditions. FedEx stated that this
system is not required and not desired by the FedEx pilots.
    FedEx stated that in the view of the air operation division (AOD)
flight technical operations and fleet technical pilots, a controlled
(as opposed to automated) relight of an engine after flameout has a
greater chance of success. FedEx stated that under the current
configuration, the flightcrews have the capability--with guidance on
recommended in-flight restart airspeeds and altitudes from the quick
reference handbook (QRH)--to ensure that accessory loads have been
reduced and the fuel flow has been managed through throttle movements
prior to a relight attempt. FedEx stated that an automated system could
potentially force a relight attempt under non-nominal conditions, which
could actually delay a successful engine restart. FedEx noted an
example would be a restart attempt when windmilling N2 is below the
recommended restart value in the GE operating instructions.
    FedEx stated, therefore, its position is that the steps that have
already been taken, and the controls that are currently in place to
ameliorate the extremely small risk of an engine flameout, which could
result in a loss-of-control event, are adequate to ensure safety under
all flight regimes. FedEx stated that, furthermore, the proposed
modification does not increase the level of safety in real-world terms
to sufficiently justify the relatively high financial and operational
impact to its company.
    We disagree with FedEx's request to withdraw this SNPRM. As stated
previously, because we have received reports of two single-engine
flameout events during inclement weather, this condition is unsafe and
could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, especially at
low altitude.
    In regard to the Model MD-11 airplanes, those airplanes are not
included in the applicability of this SNPRM; each engine installation
is evaluated separately from other airplane models due to their
installation differences. The actions specified in this SNPRM are not
the same as the actions tied to the ice protection system described in
FedEx's comment. Also, not all affected airplanes have FADEC-controlled
engines installed. In addition, as noted previously, we consider a
design solution that does not require pilot action to be a more robust
mitigating action to address an unsafe condition.
    Affected operators may request approval of an AMOC under the
provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this SNPRM by submitting data
substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of
safety. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) Based on
Financial Impact

    FedEx requested that the NPRM (77 FR 36211, June 18, 2012) be
withdrawn based on the financial impact it will have on its company.
FedEx stated that it agrees with the FAA's estimates that the financial
impact would be nearly $1 million to its company in material and labor,
and it has concerns that the cost may in fact continue to increase.
FedEx stated that to date, Airbus has revised the service information
three times, and each of these revisions has increased the material
costs of the modification. FedEx stated that the manpower requirements
and lead time for the required parts have also increased significantly
over the initial release of the service information. FedEx stated that
it has elected to begin performing the modifications immediately upon
release of the initial service information; therefore, it would have to
return multiple times to perform additional work in order to meet the
requirements of the subsequent revisions. FedEx stated that it does not
have a high degree of confidence that the scope of this modification
will not continue to increase and result in further cost and
operational disruption.
    We partially agree with the commenter. We disagree to withdraw this
SNPRM based on the financial impact as we have received reports of two
single-engine flameout events during inclement weather, as stated
previously. This condition is unsafe and could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane, especially at low altitude.
    We agree, however, with FedEx that the estimated costs of
compliance have increased with each service information revision. We
have revised the Costs of Compliance paragraph of this SNPRM to reflect
the updated costs in the latest service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM (77 FR
36211, June 18, 2012). As a result, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment on this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost           product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification......................  Up to 98               Up to $18,417........         $26,747      $1,257,109
                                     work[dash]hours x
                                     $85 per hour =
                                     $8,330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-0636; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
037-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 21, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R
airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant
F airplanes, and Model A310-204 and -304 airplanes; certificated in
any category; all serial numbers; powered by General Electric (GE)
CF6-80C2 series engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 74, Ignition.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of two single-engine flameout
events during inclement weather. We are issuing this AD to prevent a
long engine restart sequence after a non-selection of continuous
relight by the crew and a flameout event of both engines, which
could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, especially
at low altitude.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Modification

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 30 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later: Modify the airplane by
installing a shunt of the rotary selector (introducing an auto-
relight function), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-74-6003,
Revision 05, dated May 23, 2013 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and
B4-605R airplanes, Model A300 F4-605R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-
605R Variant F airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A310-74-2003, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2013 (for Model A310-204
and -304 airplanes).

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, and provided
that the additional work in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-
74-6003, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2013; or Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision 05, including Appendix 1,
dated May 23, 2013; is done, as required by paragraph (g) of this
AD.
    (1) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R airplanes, Model
A300 F4-605R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes:
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-74-6003, Revision 04, dated
January 9, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference.
    (2) For Model A310-204 and -304 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision 04, dated January 9, 2013,
which is not incorporated by reference.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their
delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with a State of
Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable). For
a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must
specifically refer to this AD. You are required to assure the
product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011-
0113, dated June 17, 2011, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-0636.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 19, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04853 Filed 3-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 107)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31734-31736]
[DOCID:fr04jn10-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0260; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GROB-WERKE (Type Certificate Previously
Held by BURKHART GROB Luft- und Raumfahrt) Models G115C, G115D and
G115D2 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for the products listed above.
This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    The manufacturer has received a report of a failed canopy
jettison test, during a regular maintenance check. The investigation
revealed that a cable shroud of the jettison system protruded the
canopy structure, which probably caused the malfunction. Inability
to jettison the canopy in flight would prevent evacuation of the
aeroplane in case of need.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Davison, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0260;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-015-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the

specified products, which was published in the Federal Register on
March 16, 2010 (75 FR 12466). That earlier NPRM proposed to require
actions intended to address the unsafe condition for the products
listed above.
    Since that NPRM was issued, we have determined that additional
actions are necessary in order to eliminate any confusion and to ensure
pilot awareness of the unsafe condition. Specifically, we are adding a
placard requirement prohibiting aerobatic flight before accomplishing
the actions of the proposed AD. Since these actions impose an
additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
additional actions.

Relevant Service Information

    Grob Aircraft AG has issued Service Bulletin No. MSB1078-164, dated
July 21, 2009. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier
NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on the proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 3 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $765 or $255 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $68, for a cost of
$323 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.

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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

GROB-WERKE (Type Certificate Previously Held by BURKHART GROB Luft-
und Raumfahrt): Docket No. FAA-2010-0260; Directorate Identifier
2010-CE-015-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 19, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models G115C, G115D, and G115D2
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 52: Doors.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    The manufacturer has received a report of a failed canopy
jettison test, during a regular maintenance check. The investigation
revealed that a cable shroud of the jettison system protruded the
canopy structure, which probably caused the malfunction. Inability
to jettison the canopy in flight would prevent evacuation of the
aeroplane in case of need.

For the reason stated above, this AD mandates an additional one time
canopy jettison test and repair if necessary.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Before further flight after the effective date of this AD,
fabricate a placard (using at least \1/8\-inch letters) with the
following words and install the placard on the

instrument panel within the pilot's clear view: ``AEROBATIC FLIGHT
PROHIBITED.''
    (2) Before the next aerobatic flight after the effective date of
this AD, do a canopy jettison test following Grob Aircraft AG
Service Bulletin No. MSB1078-164, dated July 21, 2009.
    (3) If the canopy jettison fails the test required in paragraph
(f)(2) of this AD, before further aerobatic flight:
    (i) Contact Grob Aircraft AG, Customer Service, 86874
Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany, telephone: + 49 (0) 8268-998-105;
fax; + 49 (0) 8268-998-200; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
for an FAA-approved repair scheme and incorporate the repair scheme;
or
    (ii) Replace the canopy handle following Grob Aircraft AG
Service Bulletin No. MSB1078-164, dated July 21, 2009.
    (4) Within 7 days after doing the canopy jettison test required
in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD or within 7 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, submit a report of the test
results using Appendix 1 of Grob Aircraft AG Service Bulletin No.
MSB1078-164, dated July 21, 2009, to Grob Aircraft AG at the address
specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this AD.
    (5) After the corrective actions specified in paragraphs
(f)(3)(i) or (f)(3)(ii) are done or if the canopy jettison passed
the test required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further
flight, remove the placard that was installed in accordance with
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: The MCAI does not have a placard requirement. To
eliminate any confusion and to ensure pilot awareness of the unsafe
condition, we added a temporary placard requirement to this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2009-0279, dated December 23, 2009; and Grob Aircraft AG Service
Bulletin No. MSB1078-164, dated July 21, 2009, for related
information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 27, 2010.
Steven W. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-13422 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50711-50712]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-10-000]

Modernizing Electricity Market Design; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference on Energy and Ancillary Services in the Evolving
Electricity Sector

    As first announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in
this proceeding on July 14, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference
in the above-referenced proceeding on September 14, 2021, from
approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. The conference will
be held remotely. Attached to this Supplemental Notice is an agenda for
the technical conference, which includes the final conference program
and expected speakers. Commissioners may attend and participate in the
technical conference.
    Discussions at the conference may involve issues raised in
proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These
proceedings include, but are not limited to:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Docket No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Independent System Operator Corporation.....  ER21-2455-000
New York Independent System Operator, Inc..............  ER21-2460-000
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.............................  ER21-1919-000
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.............................  EL21-78-000, et al.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc..........  ER21-2620-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc..........  ER21-2486-000; ER21-2487-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc..........  ER21-2720-000
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.............................  EL19-58, et al.; ER19-1486, et al.
PJM Interconnection L.L.C..............................  ER21-2582-000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conference will be open for the public to attend remotely.
There is no fee for attendance. Information on this technical
conference, including a link to the webcast, will be posted on the
conference's event page on the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events/technical-conference-regarding-energy-and-ancillary-services-markets-09142021) prior to the event. The
conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available for a fee
from Ace Reporting<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Emma Nicholson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
Alexander

Smith at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal
information, please contact Adam Eldean at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
(202) 502-8047. For information related to logistics, please contact
Sarah McKinley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 3, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19531 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P