[Federal Register: May 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 27021-27022]
[DOCID:fr12my08-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the
Requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236

    Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and
49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of
49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.

Docket Number FRA-2008-0051

    Applicant: Utah Transit Authority, Ms. Jennifer Rigby, General
Counsel, 3600 South 700 West, P.O. Box 30810, Salt Lake City, Utah
84130.
    The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) seeks relief from the requirements
of the Rules, Standards, and Instructions, 49 CFR part 236, Section
236.513(a), Audible indicator, for its planned commuter rail system
``FrontRunner,'' to the extent that UTA be permitted to utilize a cab
signal system that does not contain any onboard acknowledgment device
beyond the acknowledgment received from movement of brake control(s).
The location of the request is the entire current and planned
FrontRunner system. Phase one will be approximately 44 miles between
Pleasant View, in Weber County, and Salt Lake City, Utah.
    Applicant's justification for relief:
    (1) The installed cab signal system enforces the speed limit of the
detected cab signal by first warning of, and if no action is taken,
then immediately requesting an irrevocable penalty brake application
when the vehicle speed is detected as being at or over the speed limit
plus a pre-determined buffer.
    (2) In the case of a cab signal aspect downgrade and the vehicle
speed is above the new downgrade speed limit, the operator must,
through his action, bring the vehicle speed to the new speed limit in
accordance with prescribed parameters of the FrontRunner Timetable. If
the operator fails to act accordingly to reduce the train's speed to
the required limit, an alarm sounds continuously to warn of a pending
penalty brake application. If there is no or insufficient action taken
by the train operator to reduce the speed to the acceptable threshold
within 4 seconds, an irrevocable penalty brake application is applied.
    (3) In the case of a cab signal aspect downgrade and the vehicle
speed is already below the new downgrade speed limit, the operator is
only required to keep the vehicle speed below the new speed limit. In
either case, the cab signal system sounds a momentary audible alarm to
indicate that the cab signal aspect has changed. If there is no or
insufficient action taken by the train operator to reduce the speed to
the acceptable threshold within 4 seconds, an irrevocable penalty brake
application is applied.
    (4) In the case of no cab signal downgrade but the vehicle speed
increases to a value above the speed limit plus the pre-determined
buffer, the cab signal system requests an immediate, irrevocable,
penalty brake application.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an
application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the
protest is made, and it shall contain a concise statement of the
interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the
protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed
above.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should be
identified by Docket Number FRA-2008-0051and may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 6, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E8-10478 Filed 5-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29312-29313]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11010]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77769; File No. SR-ICC-2016-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Revise the ICC Operational Risk
Management Framework

May 5, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On March 10, 2016, 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 (SR-ICC-2016-003)
to update ICC's Operational Risk Management Framework. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March
21, 2016.\3\ The Commission did not receive 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\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77413 (March 21,
2016), 81 FR 16245 (March 25, 2016) (SR-ICC-2016-003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ICC Operational Risk Management Framework details ICC's program
of risk assessment and oversight, managed by the Operational Risk
Manager (``ORM''), which, according to ICC, aims to reduce operational
incidents, encourage process and control improvement, bring
transparency to operational performance standard monitoring, and
fulfill regulatory obligations. ICC proposes organizational changes to
its Operational Risk Management Framework related to its operational
risk management processes.
    ICC will revise the Operational Risk Management Framework to frame
its existing operational risk program and processes around an
operational risk lifecycle, which according to ICC, is designed to
highlight certain aspects of the processes and present the processes in
a more efficient manner. The operational risk lifecycle utilized by ICC
will have five components: Identify, assess, monitor, mitigate and
report. Each of these lifecycle components will be first defined
generally in the document then applied to each of ICC's two operational
risk processes: Risk assessment; and performance objectives setting and
monitoring. Specifically, the content for each risk process will be
reorganized to fall into each of the operational risk lifecycle
components (i.e., identify, assess, monitor, mitigate, and report).
    In addition, ICC will add information regarding the `assess' and
`report' component of the risk assessment process. Specifically, ICC
represents that it will assess each of its risk scenarios to determine
the inherent risk rating associated with the occurrence of an event or
incident, as well as the effectiveness of any relevant risk controls.
Further, in the `report' component, ICC will clarify that the ORM
presents operational risk reporting to an internal committee which
includes members of senior management. The responsibilities of the ORM,
which is currently listed out in the document, will be incorporated
into the risk lifecycles. ICC respresents that the ORM will continue to
provide management and staff with advice and guidance related to the
development of controls designed to increase performance and reduce
processing risk, as part of the `mitigate' risk lifecycle component.
Similarly, the responsibilities of senior management, which is
currently listed out in the document, will be incorporated into the
risk lifecycles.
    ICC will categorize those aspects of the operational risk
management program which do not fall within this lifecycle as
``Operational Risk Focus Areas.'' These risk focus areas include:
Business continuity planning and disaster recovery; vendor assessment;
new products and initiatives; information security; and technology
control functions. ICC will reorganize the order of these risk focus
areas to better distinguish which functions may, with oversight by the
ORM, be outsourced to Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE, Inc.'')
or performed by departments dedicated to that particular risk area.
    ICC will make several clarifying and organizational enhancements to
the various risk focus area descriptions. Further, specific details
contained within other ICC policies and procedures will be removed and
described more generally within the Operational Risk Management
Framework, in an effort to reduce redundancy amongst ICC policies and
procedures. ICC will continue to maintain business continuity planning
and disaster recovery as two separate programs with separate and
distinct components; however, ICC will group the description of these
programs together for purposes of the Operational

Risk Management Framework. ICC will amend the ``Vendor Assessment''
risk focus area description to note that the ORM is responsible for
conducting a service provider risk assessment for critical vendors, and
to list the specific steps taken as part of such risk assessment. ICC
also will amend the ``Information Security'' risk focus area
description to note that the ICE, Inc. Information Security Department
conducts its own risk assessments related to information security and
physical security/environmental controls, pursuant to internal policies
which are maintained by an ICE, Inc. internal committee. Information
regarding the Firm Wide Incident Management Program will be included in
the new `Technology Controls Section.' ICC will amend the `Technology
Control Functions' risk focus area description to note that the ICC
Systems Operations team is responsible for executing daily clearing
functions within established service expectations and performing
incident management. ICC will describe this incident management process
generally within the framework, and will remove more detailed aspects
of the program which are contained in specific program documentation.
    General information regarding the development and enforcement of a
firm-wide operational risk framework will be removed, as the revised
framework will more clearly lay out in each particular section who is
responsible for the development and enforcement of that component of
the operational risk management framework. Information regarding the
human resource reporting line of the ORM and specific references to
titles of documents utilized as part of the risk assessment process
will be removed. As the Vendor Risk Management policy will be retired
and encompassed within the Operational Risk Management Framework,
reference to the policy will be removed from the document. ICC will
also remove internal audit responsibilities from the Operational Risk
Management Framework as such responsibilities are contained within
internal audit documentation.
    ICC represents that the overall governance of the Operational Risk
Framework will also be updated to reflect current practices.
Specifically, material amendments are reviewed by the Risk Committee,
and approved by the Board. The Board reviews the Operational Risk
Management Framework at least annually.
    Other non-material changes will be made to the framework to improve
readability. Previously, ICC included regulatory requirements and
industry guidance information within the framework; this information
will be moved to a separate appendix to the framework. Further,
information regarding Regulation Systems, Compliance, and Integrity
will be added for completeness. Certain information regarding
governance and governing committees will be resituated to the reporting
section of the relevant operational risk lifecycle. Similarly,
information regarding the roles and responsibilities of the ORM and
senior management will be resituated to the appropriate section the
operational risk lifecycle.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \4\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \5\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4),\6\ in part, requires clearing agencies to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to identify sources of operational risk
and minimize them through the development of appropriate systems,
controls, and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC. The proposed rule change
updates the Operational Risk Management Framework to frame its existing
operational risk program and processes around an operational risk
lifestyle. In addition, the proposed rule change categorizes the
operational risk management programs that do not fall within this
lifecycle as Operational Risk Focus Areas. The Commission finds that
the reorganization of ICC's existing operational risk processes around
the operational risk lifecycle is designed to promote readability and
efficiency, and should alleviate potential confusion in the
implementation of the Operational Risk Management Framework. In that
the Operational Risk Management Framework is intended, among other
things, to reduce or mitigate operational incidents that would impair
ICC's ability to provide clearance and settlement services, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is designed to
facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transaction and, to the extent applicable, derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions in accordance with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\8\ In addition, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the relevant requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4) \9\ because the change to the ICC Operational Risk
Management Framework is intended to further ensure that ICC, through
its operational risk program, is able to identify sources of
operational risk and minimize them through the development of
appropriate systems, control, and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 of the Act \10\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICC-2016-003) be,
and hereby is, approved.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11010 Filed 5-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

11/19/2007 04:46 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

Supplementary materials on ozone NAAQS comments

Heidi and Amy,

I thought I had sent these to you last Friday, but can't find any record that I did so.  Thus, I'm sending them to you now, maybe for a second time.  These are our more detailed descriptions of the comments we received from various state officials.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43597-43598]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1946-000]

Atlantic Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Atlantic Energy LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
    (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene
or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 18, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers
    to receive email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 27, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15780 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Board is amending EC12(a) to require Board members and professional
staff to disclose employment negotiations with brokers or dealers, in
addition to registered accounting firms and issuers.

D. Request to Apply Conforming Amendments to Audits of Emerging Growth
Companies

    The PCAOB is sensitive to the compliance burden incurred by
auditors and other market participants due to its regulatory
requirements and has attempted in a variety of ways to minimize burdens
on affected entities while also satisfying the objectives of Congress
and the SEC. These include the Board's efforts to tailor its ethics and
auditor independence requirements, in Rules 3520 through 3526, to the
organizational structure of brokers and dealers, and, in particular,
not at this time extending to broker and dealer audits Rule 3523's
prohibition on providing tax services to persons in financial reporting
oversight roles. A number of other cost-minimization measures are
discussed below.
    In its proposal, the PCAOB invited commenters to submit comment on
all aspects of the proposed amendments. Several commenters addressed
the economic consequences of the proposed amendments in qualitative
terms. These comments are addressed below.
    As discussed in the release, the PCAOB's objective in adopting
today's amendments is to conform its rules, forms, and ethics code to
the Dodd-Frank amendments to Sarbanes-Oxley and the SEC's amendments to
Rule 17a-5. In amending the PCAOB's rules, forms, and ethics code the
PCAOB has endeavored to achieve Congress's and the SEC's objectives in
a cost-effective manner.
    To the extent that these amendments reflect the statutory
requirements of Dodd-Frank, the PCAOB's action is technical and non-
substantive. It will not result in economic consequences beyond those
resulting from Congress's determinations. Similarly, to the extent that
these amendments reflect the SEC's Rule 17a-5 determinations, the
PCAOB's action is housekeeping that will not result in separate
economic consequences. However, to the extent that the amendments
reflect the PCAOB's own determinations regarding implementation of
Dodd-Frank's provisions or the SEC's Rule 17a-5 determinations, these
determinations may result in additional economic consequences. These
additional economic consequences (resulting from the PCAOB's own
determinations) are separately considered below.
    The baseline the Board uses to analyze the economic consequences of
these amendments is the determinations made by Congress in 2010 to
amend Sarbanes-Oxley and by the SEC in July 2013 to require that audits
of brokers and dealers are to be conducted in accordance with the
standards of the PCAOB. To conform to the determinations made by
Congress and the SEC, the PCAOB's rules, forms, and ethics code are
being amended to reflect the amendments to Sarbanes-Oxley and Rule 17a-
5.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ The SEC included an economic analysis of its amendments to
Rule 17a-5 in the release issued in July 2013. See Broker-Dealer
Reports, Exchange Act Release No. 70073, at nn. 724-870 and
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments Involving no PCAOB Discretion

    Because Congress amended Sarbanes-Oxley and the SEC amended Rule
17a-5, the PCAOB's action to amend its rules, forms, and ethics code to
conform to these amendments is technical and non-substantive. They do
not reflect an exercise of PCAOB discretion. Instead, the PCAOB is
adopting these amendments to implement statutory directives and the
regulatory directives of the SEC. The PCAOB does not expect that these
conforming amendments will result in any economic consequences, beyond
reflecting the actions of Congress and the SEC.
    To reflect the Dodd-Frank amendments, the Board is making technical
conforming revisions, and including references to audits and auditors
of brokers and dealers, in rules, ethics code provisions, and Form 1
parts that formerly applied only to issuers. These amendments include
the revisions to: (1) The Rule 1001 definitions of ``audit,'' ``audit
report,'' ``foreign auditor oversight authority,'' ``other accounting
services,'' ``person associated with a public accounting firm,'' ``play
a substantial role in the preparation or furnishing of an audit
report,'' ``professional standards,'' and ``suspension;'' (2) the
Board's registration and reporting rules (Rule 2100, Rule 2106, and
Rule 2107); (3) certain of the Board's rules governing investigations
and adjudications (Rule

5105, Rule 5108,\207\ Rule 5112, Rule 5200, Rule 5204, and Rule 5420);
(4) certain provisions of the Board's ethics code (EC2(f), EC7(b), and
EC12(a)); and (5) Parts III, V, VI, VII, and X of Form 1. These
amendments simply reflect the amended statutory and regulatory
provisions. They are not expected to result in any economic
consequences, beyond reflecting the actions of Congress and the SEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Separately, Section 1161(h) of the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, 2781
(2008) amended Sarbanes-Oxley to authorize the PCAOB to share
information gathered in Board inspections and investigations with
the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (with respect to
audits of institutions within the Federal Housing Finance Agency's
jurisdiction). The PCAOB is adopting amendments to conform to
Section 1161(h) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act. See Rule
5108(a)(2)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other technical amendments and non-substantive updates include the
revisions to: (1) The Rule 1001 definitions of ``party'' and
``secretary;'' (2) Rules 3101, 3201T, and 3600T, (3) the Board's
inspections rules (Rule 4009, Rule 4020T); (4) certain of the Board's
rules governing investigations and adjudications (Rule 5102, Rule 5105,
Rule 5110, Rule 5201, Rule 5205, Rule 5300, Rule 5407, Rule 5421, Rule
5426, Rule 5427, Rule 5442, Rule 5445, Rule 5460, and Rule 5462); (5)
Rules 7103 and 7104 of the Board's funding rules; (6) certain
provisions of the Board's ethics code (EC2(e), EC5(d), EC8(a)); and (7)
certain Form 1 items (general instruction 6, Item 2.1(e), Item 2.2(e)),
a Form 1-WD item (general instruction 7), certain Form 3 items (general
instruction 8, Item 2.12, Item 2.13, Item 5.1, Item 5.2), and certain
Form 4 items (general instruction 9, Item 3.2.e.1-2). To the extent
these amendments are being made to conform to the determinations of
Congress and the SEC, they will reflect the actions of Congress and the
SEC; the other amendments are not expected to result in separate
economic consequences.

Amendments Involving Some PCAOB Discretion

    In certain respects Congress and the SEC left to the PCAOB the
determination of which Board rules, forms, and ethics code provisions
should apply to broker and dealer audits and how the Board should
implement other Dodd-Frank provisions. These amendments in part reflect
the PCAOB's own determinations and, to some extent, entail economic
consequences beyond those resulting from Congress's statutory
directives or the SEC's Rule 17a-5 determinations.
    These amendments: (1) Make the Rule 1001 definitions of ``audit
services'' and ``other accounting services'' applicable to broker and
dealer audits; (2) require that auditors of brokers and dealers comply
with the PCAOB's rules establishing auditing, attestation, and quality
control standards (Rules 3200T, 3300T, and 3400T); (3) require that
broker and dealer auditors adhere to certain of the PCAOB's ethics and
auditor independence rules (Rules 3500T, 3501, 3502, 3520, 3521, 3522,
and 3526) but not to others (Rules 3523, 3524, and 3525); and (4)
tailor certain Form 1, Form 2, Form 3 and Form 4 items to call for
relevant broker and dealer audit client information and implement the
Dodd-Frank amendments (Items 3.1 and 3.2 of Form 1, Items 3.1, 3.2,
3.3, 4.3, 4.4, 7.1, and 7.3 of Form 2, Items 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, and
4.1 of Form 3, and Item 3.2.e.3 of Form 4).
    The PCAOB is also amending some rules and form items in light of
administrative experience and to make a number of updates to address
recent events. These amendments include the revisions to: (1) Rule
5422; (2) Section 1000.08(m) of the SEC Practice Section Requirements
of Membership; (3) Items 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 of Form 1, and General
Instruction 4 of Form 1-WD; and (4) Items 2.1-C and 3.2 of Form 3. The
PCAOB considers the economic consequences of these amendments below.
    Rule 1001 amendments. The PCAOB is amending the Rule 1001
definitions of ``audit services'' and ``other accounting services'' to
encompass the professional services auditors provide to broker and
dealer audit clients. Pursuant to Section 102(b)(2)(B) of Sarbanes-
Oxley, public accounting firms applying for PCAOB registration will use
these definitions, along with the definition of ``non-audit services''
(which is not being amended), to attribute the annual fees they
received from each broker and dealer audit client to one of the defined
categories of services on Items 3.1 and 3.2 of Form 1. Commenters did
not address the proposed amendments to the definitions of ``audit
services'' and ``other accounting services,'' and the PCAOB is adopting
the amendments as proposed. The PCAOB does not expect that these
amendments will result in cost-related implications apart from the
related Form 1 amendments discussed below.
    Section 3 amendments. The amendments also generally make Rules
3200T, 3300T, and 3400T, the PCAOB's rules establishing auditing,
attestation, and quality control standards, applicable to audits of
brokers and dealers. Several commenters opposed the proposed
application of the PCAOB's rules and standards--focusing particularly
on the Board's quality control, ethics, and independence standards--to
audits of ``introducing'' or ``non-carrying'' brokers and dealers.\208\
One commenter asserted that requiring auditors of brokers and dealers
to follow PCAOB quality control, ethics, and independence standards is
not warranted until the PCAOB decides the scope and elements of its
permanent inspection program for broker and dealer audits.\209\
Additionally, one commenter suggested that Rule 3400T's application of
the requirements of the SEC Practice Section (``SECPS'') of the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants only to the auditors
of brokers and dealers that were members of the SECPS in 2003 could
result in an unbalanced and disparate application of the Board's
requirements.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ See AICPA Comment Letter; Crowe Horwath Comment Letter;
KPMG Comment Letter; Rothstein Kass Comment Letter; WeiserMazars
Comment Letter.
    \209\ See AICPA Comment Letter.
    \210\ See Grant Thornton Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, the PCAOB has further considered the
application of the PCAOB's rules establishing auditing, attestation,
and quality control standards to auditors of brokers and dealers. As
explained in the release, the SEC has decided that all audit reports
filed with the SEC and designated examining authorities by brokers and
dealers must be prepared in accordance with PCAOB standards. A final
Board decision regarding the scope of the Board's inspection program
will be made at a later date. The Board is not delaying adoption of the
amendments to its rules. The PCAOB has also determined to make
operative the two SECPS requirements that are applicable to broker and
dealer engagements only to firms that were members of the SECPS in
2003.
    The benefit of these amendments is that they will clarify the
applicability of these rules to audits of brokers and dealers. The
amendments will promote investor protection by clarifying that
registered firms must comply with the PCAOB's rules establishing
auditing, attestation, and quality control standards in audits of SEC-
registered brokers and dealers. Consistent compliance with PCAOB
standards for these audits will facilitate the Board's regulatory
oversight over broker and dealer audits, and, among other things,
facilitate the PCAOB's development and implementation of a permanent
inspection program for these audits. The amendments will also
facilitate the SEC's regulatory oversight of auditors,

brokers, and dealers (because the SEC has direct oversight authority
over the PCAOB, including the authority to approve or disapprove the
Board's rules and standards).
    The PCAOB has determined that these amendments will create some
additional compliance costs for affected market participants. These
costs include the one-time implementation costs for registered firms to
update their broker and dealer audit methodologies to reflect PCAOB
standards and train their personnel. These costs are attributable to
SEC Rule 17a-5. Thus, the PCAOB does not anticipate that its conforming
rule changes will result in significant costs to auditors (or to
brokers and dealers in the form of increased audit fees).
    Similarly, the Board notes that only two of the five SECPS
membership requirements adopted by the PCAOB apply to the audits of
brokers and dealers. These two requirements relate to continuing
professional education requirements for audit firm personnel and the
firm communicating through a written statement to its professional
personnel the firm's broad policies and procedures related to
accounting principles, client relationships, and services provided. The
Board notes that all firms (including those that were members of the
SECPS in 2003) are required to comply with state and professionally
mandated continuing professional education requirements that satisfy
most, if not all, of these education requirements, and expects that
firms distribute such information to their professional personnel to
effectively manage their firms.\211\ The PCAOB therefore estimates that
application of these requirements to audits of brokers and dealers that
were members of the SECPS in 2003 will not result in a significant
compliance burden on auditors of brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ State CPE requirements range from a minimum of 0 hours (in
one state) to a maximum of 120 hours every three years (in 45
states), and the PCAOB is requiring 120 hours every three years
(with a minimum of at least 20 hours every year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments also require that broker and dealer auditors adhere
to certain of the PCAOB's ethics and auditor independence rules (Rules
3500T, 3501, 3502, 3520, 3521, 3522, and 3526) but not to others (Rules
3523, 3524, and 3525).
    These rules establish a standard of ethical behavior for the
conduct of persons associated with registered firms (Rules 3502 and
3520). They also prohibit broker and dealer auditors from: (1) Entering
into a contingent fee or commission arrangement (Rule 3521); or (2)
providing any non-audit service related to transactions that are
``confidential transactions'' or ``aggressive tax positions'' under
Internal Revenue Service regulations (Rule 3522). The PCAOB is also
adding a definition of ``audit committee'' to Rule 3501 so that Rule
3526 (Communication with Audit Committees Concerning Independence)
applies to brokers and dealers that may not have organizational
structures that include audit committees. No commenters opposed or
suggested that these ethics and auditor independence rules does not
apply audits of brokers and dealers. The PCAOB is not prohibiting firms
from providing tax services to persons in financial reporting oversight
roles (Rule 3523) in part due to commenter concerns about additional
cost-related implications for auditors and brokers and dealers.
    The PCAOB believes applying Rules 3500T, 3501, 3502, 3520, 3521,
3522 and 3526 to audits of brokers and dealers is consistent with
investor protection. The amendments will promote investor protection by
clarifying that auditors of brokers and dealers are required to adhere
to certain of the PCAOB's ethics and independence rules. These rules,
among other things, prohibit auditors from entering into contingent
fees or commission arrangements or providing non-audit services related
to aggressive tax positions to broker and dealer audit clients.
Although these amendments will result in some new compliance costs on
auditors of brokers and dealers, the Board does not anticipate that
these costs will be significant. These costs will relate primarily to
the one-time costs to update the firm's policies and procedures and
training for these ethics and independence rules. Firms will also have
recurring monitoring costs related to these amendments.
    Form amendments. The amendments also tailor certain Form 1, Form 2,
Form 3, and Form 4 items to call for relevant broker and dealer audit
client information and reflect the Dodd-Frank amendments (Items 3.1 and
3.2 of Form 1, Items 3.1, 3.3, 4.3, 4.4, 7.1, and 7.3 of Form 2, Items
2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, and 4.1 of Form 3, and Item 3.2.e.3 of Form 4).
This information will further the PCAOB's understanding of the market
for broker and dealer audit services and enable the Board to make
regulatory decisions (like how to allocate its inspections program
resources) that will protect the interests of investors. This
information may also help inform investors and the market generally
about auditors' broker and dealer audit practice.
    Form 1. In addition to the conforming amendments to Form 1, which
were discussed earlier, the PCAOB is adding Items 3.1 and 3.2 to Form 1
to require general identifying information about the applicant's broker
or dealer audit practice. Items 3.1 and 3.2 require the name of the
broker or dealer, its business address, CRD number, and CIK number, as
well as the date of the audit report, and the total amount of fees
billed for audit services, other accounting services, and non-audit
services (as defined by the PCAOB). The PCAOB expects that the Form 1
disclosure requirements for broker and dealer audit clients will not
affect most registered firms, which have already filed Form 1. Going
forward, the PCAOB expects that most new firms will not have prepared
audit reports for broker or dealer clients during the preceding or
current calendar year (without having been previously registered). The
PCAOB is also taking steps to minimize the compliance burden associated
with these amendments. Recognizing that firms with broker and dealer
audit clients have not necessarily been maintaining billing records in
a way that readily facilitates precise reporting according to the fee
categories in Sarbanes-Oxley (as the PCAOB has defined them), the PCAOB
is adopting a note that provides that estimated amounts may be used in
responding to these Form 1 items, to the extent that these fees have
not previously been disclosed or otherwise known to an applicant.
Commenters did not address these Form 1 items. The PCAOB expects these
amendments will result in small additional compliance costs related to
reporting this information for a small number of applicant firms. The
PCAOB is adopting these amendments as proposed.
    Form 2. The amendments to Form 2 require that firms annually
disclose general information about their broker and dealer audit
practice. Specifically, the amendments require that firms indicate
whether they issued any audit reports with respect to any broker or
dealer during the annual reporting period, and, if they did not issue
any such audit reports, to indicate whether they played a substantial
role in the preparation or furnishing of an audit report with respect
to a broker or dealer (Item 3.1). The amendments also require firms to
disclose information concerning each audit report the firm issued for a
broker or dealer audit client during the reporting period (Item 4.3).
If the firm did not issue any broker or dealer audit reports during the
reporting period, the amendments require the firm to disclose

the names and identifying information for each broker or dealer audit
report the firm played a substantial role in preparing or furnishing in
the reporting period (Item 4.4). Firms are also required to report
information about certain types of relationships with individuals and
entities that have specified disciplinary and other histories involving
brokers or dealers (Items 7.1 and 7.3). Commenters generally asserted
that firms should not be required to report audit fee information for
broker and dealer audit clients on an ongoing basis on Form 2.\212\ The
PCAOB has determined to mitigate firm costs by not imposing an annual
reporting requirement with respect to fees for services provided to
broker and dealer audit clients. The PCAOB did not receive other
comments on these Form 2 amendments and is adopting them as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ See CAQ Comment Letter; Crowe Horwath Comment Letter; EY
Comment Letter; KPMG Comment Letter; McGladrey Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to Form 2 also reflect the Dodd-Frank amendment
requiring certain foreign public accounting firms to designate to the
SEC or PCAOB an agent in the United States upon whom may be served any
request by the SEC or PCAOB under Section 106 of Sarbanes-Oxley or upon
whom may be served any process, pleading, or other papers in any action
to enforce Section 106 of Sarbanes-Oxley (Item 3.3). One commenter said
proposed Item 3.3 could result in confusion and efforts by persons
other than the SEC or PCAOB to serve subpoenas or process on foreign
firms' designated agents.\213\ The PCAOB has determined to adopt Item
3.3 as proposed. This amendment imposes only a new reporting
requirement and does not confer rights on anyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ See KPMG Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PCAOB believes the Form 2 amendments strike an appropriate
balance between the Board's need for general identifying information to
assist the Board in overseeing registered firms' broker and dealer
audit practices, and facilitate the PCAOB's and SEC's ability to track
foreign firm designations, and the time and resources firms will need
to spend compiling, preparing, and reporting this information. These
reporting requirements will contribute to investor protection by
providing additional information upon which the PCAOB can base future
program adjustments to ensure efficient deployment of the PCAOB's
resources. This information may also help inform investors and the
market generally about auditors' broker and dealer audit practice.
These reporting requirements will also result in cost-related
implications for auditors of brokers and dealers and foreign registered
firms. Specifically, one-time costs that relate primarily to updating
their records to facilitate annual reporting of their broker and dealer
audit practice to the PCAOB and reporting their Section 106 designee.
Recurring costs will include the costs of compiling and reviewing
information responsive to these additional items in their annual
reports. Over time, the PCAOB expects that firms will develop certain
efficiencies in filing their annual reports, allowing these costs to
decrease to some extent.
    Form 3. The amendments to Form 3 require firms to report
information about certain types of relationships with individuals and
entities that have specified disciplinary and other histories involving
auditors of brokers or dealers (Items 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, and 4.1). The
PCAOB did not receive comment on these Form 3 amendments and has
determined to adopt them as proposed. The PCAOB believes the Form 3
amendments will contribute to investor protection by providing the
PCAOB and the public with general information about disciplinary and
other histories involving auditors of brokers and dealers. These
reporting requirements are expected to result in small compliance costs
for firms related to monitoring and compiling this information.
    Form 4. The amendments to Form 4 require a firm succeeding to the
registration status of a predecessor firm to indicate whether the firm
issued an audit report with respect to a broker or dealer audit client
for financial statements with years ending after December 31, 2008
while not registered with the PCAOB and has never had an application
for registration approved by the Board (Item 3.2.e.3). The PCAOB did
not receive comment on this Form 4 amendment and has determined to
adopt it as proposed. The PCAOB believes the Form 4 amendment will
contribute to investor protection by providing the PCAOB with useful
information. This reporting requirement is expected to result in small
compliance costs related to reporting this information for a small
number of firms.
    Amendments made in light of administrative experience. Under the
amendments to Rule 5422 the Division of Enforcement and Investigations
(``DEI'') need not make available for inspection and copying any
document prepared by persons retained by the PCAOB or the PCAOB's staff
to provide services in connection with a PCAOB investigation,
disciplinary proceeding, or hearing on disapproval of registration. The
amendments also permit DEI to withhold documents accessed from
generally available public sources except to the extent that DEI
intends to introduce such documents as evidence. Commenters were
concerned that there is no parallel provision in the SEC's comparable
rule, and that they could enable DEI to withhold exculpatory documents.
Because the SEC's rule is structured differently, and the PCAOB does
not agree that the amendments permit DEI to withhold exculpatory
documents, the PCAOB has determined to adopt the amendments as proposed
in most respects. The amendments to Rule 5422 are designed to correct
an anomaly in DEI's document production requirements. These amendments
will facilitate the PCAOB's efficient deployment of its enforcement
program's resources. The PCAOB does not expect that the amendments to
Rule 5422 will result in increased compliance burdens for registered
firms or other market participants.
    The Board is also amending Section 1000.08(m) of the SECPS
membership requirements requiring that registered firms (that are
former members of the SECPS) notify the Commission's Office of the
Chief Accountant of the end of an auditor's relationship with an issuer
audit client (including an EGC audit client) only if the issuer has not
timely filed Form 8-K.\214\ Previously, these notices were required
irrespective of whether the issuer audit client reported the change in
auditors in a timely filed Form 8-K. This amendment is designed to
streamline the SECPS reporting requirement and to make firm notices
more meaningful.\215\ The PCAOB is also updating Appendix I of SECPS
Section 1000.43 to reflect the SEC's updated contact information and
preference for email notifications.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ See SECPS sec. 1000.08(m)(1). As amended, if by the end of
the fifth business day after a client-auditor relationship has
ended, and the issuer has not reported the change in auditors in a
timely filed Form 8-K, then a former SECPS member firm must
simultaneously send a written report of this fact to the former
client and to the SEC's Office of the Chief Accountant.
    \215\ For SEC Registrants that do not file current reports on
Form 8-K, Section 1000.08(m) remains unchanged. Notices for these
former clients are due by the end of the fifth business day
following the end of the firm's determination that the client-
auditor relationship has ended, irrespective of whether or not the
registrant has reported the change in auditors in a timely filed
report. See SECPS sec. 1000.08(m)(2).
    \216\ The SEC staff strongly encourages emailing the SECPS
report notification to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>See Appendix I, SECPS
sec. 1000.43. See also http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oca/10a1notices.htm (``The Office of the Chief Accountant strongly
encourages sending the SECPS report notification to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The staff will accept the date the email is
received as the notification date.'').

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

    Commenters generally supported reporting issuer auditor changes
under Section 1000.08(m) only if the issuer audit client has not
reported the change in auditors in a timely filed SEC form (exception
reporting).\217\ But one commenter suggested that Section 1000.08(m)
should be eliminated entirely,\218\ and one other commenter said
Section 1000.08(m) reporting is ``working, helpful, and appropriate''
and should not be amended.\219\ After considering these comments, the
PCAOB has determined that more focused Section 1000.08(m) reporting for
SEC Registrants that are required to file current reports on Form 8-K
should enhance the SEC's ability to monitor issuer auditor changes. The
amendments to Section 1000.08(m) of the SECPS membership requirements
are designed to make firms' SECPS notices more meaningful. These
amendments will contribute to the SEC's oversight of issuer auditor
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Crowe Horwath Comment Letter; EY Comment Letter; Grant
Thornton Comment Letter; McGladrey Comment Letter; PWC Comment
Letter.
    \218\ KPMG Comment Letter.
    \219\ D&T Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring that issuer auditor changes be reported only on an
exception basis for Form 8-K filers will also mean that auditors will
be required to make fewer SECPS reports to the SEC, eliminating
duplicative reporting of issuer auditor changes in most cases. At the
same time, the PCAOB understands that there will be some incremental
costs associated with the amendment to Section 1000.08(m). Auditors
that are former SECPS members will bear some additional expense in
monitoring whether their former audit clients reported the change in
auditors in a timely filed Form 8-K. Given that former SECPS member
firms are already required to make these reports, and that moving this
reporting requirement to an exception basis is a fairly subtle change,
the Board anticipates that these additional expenses will be minimal.
    Finally, the PCAOB is amending Form 1 to require issuer CIK numbers
\220\ (in Items 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4), amending Form 1-WD to eliminate the
requirement that ``original hard copies'' of requests for leave to
withdraw from Board registration be submitted (General Instruction 4),
and amending Form 3 to require firms to report circumstances where a
former issuer audit client does not comply with Item 4.01 of Commission
Form 8-K (Item 3.2). The PCAOB did not receive comment on these
proposed amendments to Forms 1 and 1-WD and has determined to adopt
them as proposed. Requiring applicants to provide issuer CIK numbers on
Form 1 will increase reporting costs slightly for a small number of
applicants, but it will enable the PCAOB to more easily identify
issuers (as well as reducing search costs for investors, the SEC, and
others). The Form 1-WD requirement will reduce compliance burdens for
withdrawing firms by eliminating an unnecessary filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ CIK numbers are unique, publicly-available identifiers and
access codes issued by the SEC's Electronic Data Gathering,
Analysis, and Retrieval System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board also received comment on these proposed amendments to
Form 3. Two commenters supported this proposed reporting
requirement.\221\ Two commenters suggested that the proposed Form 3
reporting requirement appeared redundant to Section 1000.08(m) of the
SECPS membership requirements and encouraged the Board to develop a
single solution for reporting auditor changes.\222\ Commenters were
also concerned about the scope of the proposed Form 3 reporting, some
of which commenters suggested would be difficult for the auditor to
know or would not be relevant in circumstances where the auditor
resigns or does not stand for reappointment.\223\ Finally, one
commenter said requiring auditors to make a Form 3 filing in these
circumstances would inappropriately put auditors in the position of
publicly reporting information that has not yet been reported by the
issuer.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ See EY Comment Letter; KPMG Comment Letter.
    \222\ See CAQ Comment Letter; KPMG Comment Letter (recommending
that the SECPS requirement be eliminated).
    \223\ See CAQ Comment Letter; Crowe Horwath Comment Letter; KPMG
Comment Letter; McGladrey Comment Letter; PWC Comment Letter.
    \224\ See D&T Comment Letter (suggesting, as an alternative,
that the PCAOB be copied, on a confidential basis, on the five-day
SECPS letter so that the Board could be timely informed of issuer
auditor changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PCAOB has further considered this proposal in light of the
comments and determined to adopt these proposed amendments to Form 3
largely as proposed. To ensure that the Board and public are made aware
of these events, the Board is amending the instructions to Form 3 to
require firms to file a special report with the Board if a client-
auditor relationship has ended and the issuer has not reported the
change in auditors on a Form 8-K.\225\ Specifically, if a firm resigns,
declines to stand for re-appointment, or is dismissed from an issuer
audit engagement, and the issuer does not comply with Item 4.01 of Form
8-K, the firm within 30 days must report on Form 3 the issuer's name
and CIK number, if any, whether the firm resigned, declined to stand
for re-election or was dismissed, and the date thereof.\226\ The Form 3
requirement will ensure that the Board and public are made aware of
issuer auditor changes. This reporting requirement is expected to
result in small compliance costs for firms related to monitoring and
reporting this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ Form 3, Item 3.2 is only triggered by an issuer's failure
to comply with Item 4.01 of SEC Form 8-K. This reporting requirement
does not apply to foreign private issuers (that are required to
report issuer auditor changes on Item 16F of Form 20-F) or
investment companies other than business development companies (that
are required to report auditor changes on Item 77K of Form N-SAR).
    \226\ See Form 3, Item 2.1-C and Item 3.3. If the issuer comes
into compliance with an SEC requirement to make a report concerning
the matter pursuant to Item 4.01 of Form 8-K during this 30-day
period, the firm would not be required to report the change in
auditors on Form 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicability to Audits of Emerging Growth Companies
Statutory Background
    The Board is adopting these amendments pursuant to its authority
under Sarbanes-Oxley.\227\ Before rules adopted by the Board can take
effect, they must be approved by the SEC. Pursuant to Section 107(b)(3)
of Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC shall approve a proposed rule if it finds
that the rule is ``consistent with the requirements of [the] Act and
the securities laws, or is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ Under Section 101 of the Act, the mission of the PCAOB is
to oversee the audits of companies that are subject to the
securities laws, and related matters, in order to protect the
interests of investors and further the public interest in the
preparation of informative, accurate, and independent audit reports.
Section 101(g) authorizes the Board to adopt rules to provide for
``the exercise of its authority, and the performance of its
responsibilities under [the] Act.'' Section 103 of the Act
authorizes the Board to adopt auditing standards for use by
registered public accounting firms in the preparation and issuance
of audit reports ``as required by [the] Act or the rules of the
Commission, or as may be necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 104 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (``JOBS
Act'') amended Sarbanes-Oxley to provide that any additional rules
adopted by the PCAOB after April 5, 2012 do not apply to audits of
emerging growth companies (``EGCs'') \228\ unless the SEC

``determines that the application of such additional requirements is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, after considering the
protection of investors, and whether the action will promote
efficiency, competition, and capital formation.'' \229\ Thus, the
Board's amendments are subject to a separate SEC determination
regarding their applicability to audits of EGCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ Section 3(a)(80) of the Exchange Act defines the term
``emerging growth company.'' An issuer generally qualifies as an EGC
if it has total annual gross revenue of less than $1 billion during
its most recently completed fiscal year (and its first sale of
common equity securities pursuant to an effective Securities Act
registration statement did not occur on or before December 8, 2011.)
See JOBS Act Section 101(a), (b), and (d). Once an issuer is an EGC,
it retains its EGC status until the earliest of: (i) The first year
after it has total annual gross revenue of $1 billion or more (as
indexed for inflation every five years by the SEC); (ii) the end of
the fiscal year after the fifth anniversary of its first sale of
common equity securities under an effective Securities Act
registration statement; (iii) the date on which the company issues
more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-
year period; or (iv) the date on which it is deemed to be a ``large
accelerated filer'' under the Exchange Act (generally, an entity
that has been public for at least one year and has an equity float
of at least $700 million).
    \229\ See Section 103(a)(3)(C) of Sarbanes-Oxley (15 U.S.C.
7213(a)(3)), as added by Section 104 of the JOBS Act, Public Law
112-106 (Apr. 5, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist the SEC in determining whether the Board's amendments
should apply to audits of EGCs, this submission sets forth the PCAOB's
assessment of the economic consequences of these amendments. It also
considers the potential impact the amendments would have on audits of
EGCs, including consideration of efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.
Characteristics of Self-Identified EGCs
    The PCAOB has been monitoring implementation of the JOBS Act in
order to better understand the characteristics of EGCs and inform the
Board's considerations regarding whether it should request that the SEC
apply the amendments to audits of EGCs. To assist the SEC, the Board is
providing the following information regarding EGCs that it has compiled
from public sources.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ To obtain data regarding EGCs, the PCAOB's Office of
Research and Analysis has reviewed registration statements and
Exchange Act reports filed with the SEC with filing dates between
April 5, 2012, and October 1, 2013, for disclosures by entities
related to their EGC status. Any filings subsequent to October 1,
2013 are not included in this analysis. For example, a filing made
after this date suggesting an entity deregistered and is no longer
an EGC is not included in this analysis. The PCAOB has not validated
these entities' self-identification as EGCs. The information
presented also does not include data for entities that have filed
confidential registration statements and have not subsequently made
a public filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of October 1, 2013, based on the PCAOB's research, 1,144 SEC
registrants have identified themselves as EGCs in SEC filings. These
entities operate in diverse industries. The five most common Standard
Industrial Classification (``SIC'') codes applicable to these entities
are: Blank check companies, pharmaceutical preparations, real estate
investment trusts, prepackaged software services, and computer
processing/data preparation services.
    A majority of the entities that have identified themselves as EGCs
have begun reporting information under the securities laws. Of these
entities, approximately:
     22% identified themselves in registration statements and
were not reporting under the Exchange Act as of October 1, 2013.
     61% of entities that have identified themselves as EGCs
began reporting under the Exchange Act in 2012 or later.
     17% of these entities have been reporting under the
Exchange Act since 2011 or earlier.
    Approximately 24% of these entities have securities listed on a
U.S. national securities exchange as of October 1, 2013. Approximately
64% of the entities that have identified themselves as EGCs and filed
an Exchange Act filing indicated that they were smaller reporting
companies.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ Companies generally qualify to be smaller reporting
companies, and have scaled disclosure requirements, if they have
less than $75 million in public equity float. Companies without a
calculable public equity float qualify as smaller reporting
companies if their revenues were below $50 million in the previous
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Audited financial statements were available for nearly all of the
entities that have identified themselves as EGCs.\232\ For those
entities for which audited financial statements were available, based
on information included in the most recent audited financial statements
filed as of May 15, 2013:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ Audited financial statements were available for 1,134 of
the 1,144 self-identified EGCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The reported assets for those entities ranged from zero to
approximately $18.2 billion. The average and median reported assets of
the entities were approximately $182.4 million and approximately $0.3
million, respectively.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ For purposes of comparison, the PCAOB compared the data
compiled with respect to the 898 entities with companies listed in
the Russell 3000 Index in order to compare the EGC population with
the broader issuer population. The Russell 3000 was chosen for
comparative purposes because it is intended to measure the
performance of the largest 3000 U.S. companies representing
approximately 98% of the investable U.S. equity market (as marketed
on the Russell Web site). The average and median reported assets of
issuers in the Russell 3000 was approximately $12.1 billion and
approximately $1.5 billion, respectively. The average and median
reported revenue from the most recent audited financial statements
filed as of May 15, 2013 of issuers in the Russell 3000 was
approximately $4.6 billion and $717.2 million, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The reported revenue for these entities ranged from zero
to approximately $962.9 million. The average and median reported
revenue of these entities was approximately $60.2 million and $2
thousand, respectively.
     The average and median reported assets among entities that
reported revenue greater than zero was approximately $360.8 million and
$69.3 million, respectively. The average and median reported revenue
among entities that reported revenue greater than zero was
approximately $118.7 million and $22.1 million, respectively.
     Approximately 48% of the entities that filed audited
financial statements identified themselves as ``development stage
entities'' in their financial statements.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ According to FASB standards, development stage entities
are entities devoting substantially all of their efforts to
establishing a new business and for which either of the following
conditions exists: (a) Planned principal operations have not
commenced or (b) planned principal operations have commenced, but
there has been no significant revenue from operations. See FASB
Accounting Standards Codification, Subtopic 915-10, Development
Stage Entities--Overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Approximately 38% were audited by firms that are annually
inspected by the PCAOB (i.e., firms that have issued audit reports for
more than 100 public company audit clients in a given year) or are
affiliates of annually-inspected firms. Approximately 62% were audited
by triennially-inspected firms (i.e., firms that have issued audit
reports for 100 or fewer public company audit clients in a given year)
that are not affiliates of annually-inspected firms.
Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation Considerations for EGCs
    In this section the PCAOB considers whether the action discussed
above will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation in
audits of EGCs. PCAOB staff has discussed the applicability of the JOBS
Act to this rulemaking with the SEC staff. The PCAOB is not aware of
any EGCs that are also registered brokers or dealers. Moreover, the
reporting regimes for registered brokers and dealers under SEC Rule
17a-5 are separate and distinct from those for companies subject to
reporting requirements pursuant to Section 13 and 15 of the Exchange
Act or for a Securities Act registration statement. The Board defers to
the SEC on the applicability of the JOBS Act to brokers and dealers.
Amendments Involving No PCAOB Discretion
    As described above, the conforming amendments are technical and
non-substantive and are not expected to

result in economic consequences independent from the directives of
Congress and the SEC. The PCAOB expects that these amendments will not
have efficiency, competition, or capital formation effects for audits
of EGCs.
Amendments Involving Some PCAOB Discretion
    To the extent these amendments apply to EGCs, the PCAOB has no
reason to think the economic consequences for EGCs would differ
significantly from those for the general population discussed above.
The compliance costs associated with these new rule and reporting
requirements are relatively fixed and may have a somewhat
disproportionate impact on smaller registered firms. These costs may be
passed on to firms' audit clients, including smaller and newer public
companies like EGCs. But the PCAOB has endeavored to minimize the cost-
related implications of these amendments to the extent possible, and
estimates that the cost-related implications of the amendments for
issuers, brokers, and dealers will not be significant. Similarly, the
PCAOB estimates that the amendments will not result in significant
efficiency, competition, or capital formation effects for EGCs.
    With respect to the amendments affecting broker and dealer audits,
brokers and dealers enhance the efficiency and liquidity of the
financial markets by playing the intermediary role of connecting retail
and institutional investors to investments. The adoption of the form
amendments will increase, to some extent, the total amount of
information available about brokers and dealers. In addition, to the
extent that the additional PCAOB independence rules further enhance
auditor independence, the quality of the financial reporting of brokers
and dealers may improve. Enhanced financial disclosures of brokers and
dealers help reduce information asymmetry between managers and
customers, and reduce the adverse selection risk for market
participants. To the extent they do so, the PCAOB believes the
amendments will promote market efficiency, competiveness, and capital
formation by informing investors and other market participants of the
broker and dealer audit practices of registered firms and promoting
consistent compliance with the PCAOB's rules and standards.
    Furthermore, the new information provided in the newly mandated
form items can make the audit market more competitive to some extent.
It enables auditors to learn more about their competitors, and can help
brokers and dealers make more informed decisions in selecting auditors.
Brokers and dealers serve an important financial intermediary role, so
increased competitiveness in the audit market for brokers and dealers
can, in theory, trickle down to the capital market. Finally, improving
the financial reporting of brokers and dealers facilitates financial
transactions of companies, including those of EGCs, which typically
rely on smaller brokers and dealers.
Conclusion
    The PCAOB requests that the Commission determine that it is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, after considering the
protection of investors and whether the action will promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation, to apply these amendments to audits
of emerging growth companies. The PCAOB will assist the SEC in
considering any comments the Commission receives on these matters
during the public comment process.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act, and based
on its determination that an extension of the period set forth in
Section 19(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Exchange Act is appropriate in light of
the PCAOB's request that the Commission, pursuant to Section
103(a)(3)(C) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, determine that the proposed
rules apply to audits of emerging growth companies, as defined in
Section 3(a)(80) of the Exchange Act, the Commission has determined to
extend to May 5, 2014 the date by which the Commission should take
action on the proposed rules.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed
rules are consistent with the requirements of Title I of 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/pcaob.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number PCAOB-2013-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. PCAOB-2013-03. 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/pcaob.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rules that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
proposed rules 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 such filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the PCAOB. All comments received
will be posted without charge; we do 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 No. PCAOB-2013-03 and should be submitted on or before February
24, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Office of the Chief Accountant, by
delegated authority.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ 17 CFR 200.30-11(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00271 Filed 1-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 11, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2004-19148

				                                  OST-2005-21686

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Joint Application of UNITED AIR LINES, INC. (UNITED) and TAP AIR
PORTUGAL (TAP) filed 6/21/2005 for:

XX  Amended exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 in Docket OST-2004-19148 to
permit United to display its designator code on flights operated by TAP
on the following services:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between points in the United States and points worldwide on a
third-country code-share basis under the blanket code-sharing statements
of authorization approved by the Department .

United requests route integration authority to combine this exemption
authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority. United
requests that the amended exemption authority be granted for a period
co-extensive with the exemptions granted previously to United in the
instant docket (through January 24, 2007).

XX Statement of authorization in OST-2005-21686 for blanket code-share
authority for United under 14 CFR Part 212 to:

Display TAP’s “TP” designator code on flights operated by United
between (1) any point in the United States and any point in Portugal
(either nonstop or via third country intermediate points); (2) any
points within the United States in conjunction with services held out by
TAP between Portugal and the United States (either nonstop or via third
country intermediate points); and (3) any point in the United States or
Portugal and any point in any third country.

XX Statement of authorization in OST-2005-21686 for blanket code-share
authority for TAP under 14 CFR Part 212 to:

Display United’s “UA” designator code on flights operated by TAP
between (1) any point in Portugal and any point in the United States
(either nonstop or via third country intermediate points); (2) any
points within Portugal in conjunction with services held out by United
between the United States and Portugal (either nonstop or via third
country intermediate points); and (3) any point in Portugal or the
United States and any point in any third country.

Applicant reps:   Jeffrey A. Manley<PHONE_NUMBER> (United)   DOT
Analyst:  Thuy H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

		 William Karas<PHONE_NUMBER> (TAP)

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action granting amended exemption authority to United was
effective when taken: August 11, 2005 through January 24, 2007.

The above action granting a statement of authorization to United was
effective when taken: August 11, 2005, and will remain in effect
indefinitely, subject to the conditions below.

The above action granting a statement of authorization to TAP was
effective when taken: August 11, 2005, and will remain in effect
indefinitely, subject to the conditions below.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Portugal.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:     		XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

		XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached as Appendix B)

		XX  Conditions for Statements of Authorization (see below)

		XX  Conditions for Route Integration (see below)

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

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
following conditions:

The applicant is subject to the condition that any service provided
under this exemption shall be consistent with all applicable agreements
between the United States and the foreign countries involved.
Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route integration authority
granted should be construed as conferring upon the applicant rights
(including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve
markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless the applicant
notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless
and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection
procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to
exercise such rights; (b) should there be a request by any carrier to
use the limited-entry route rights that are included in the
applicant’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption
granted here, but that are not then being used by the applicant, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for the applicant in a competitive carrier
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

The statements of authorization granted are subject to the following
conditions:

(a) The statements of authorization will remain in effect only as long
as (i) United and TAP continue to hold the necessary underlying
authority to operate the code-share services at issue, and (ii) the
code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations remains in
effect.

(b) United and TAP must promptly notify the Department (Office of
International Aviation) if the code-share agreement providing for the
code-share operations is no longer effective or if the carriers decide
to cease operating all or a portion of the approved code-share services.
 Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-2005-21686.

(c) United and/or TAP must notify the Department no later than 30 days
before they begin any new code-share service under the code-share
services authorized here.  Such notice shall identify the market(s) to
be served, which carrier will be operating the aircraft in the
code-share market added, and the date on which the service will begin.
Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-2005-21686.

(d) The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendments to the Department’s
regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out such service in the computer reservation systems and
elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the
carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of
the code-share journey for all obligations established in its contract
of carriage with the passenger; that the passenger liability of the
operating carrier be unaffected; and that the operating carrier shall
not permit the code of its U.S. code-sharing partner to be carried on
any flight that enters, departs, or transits the airspace of any area
for whose airspace the Federal Aviation Administration has issued a
flight prohibition.

(e) Any service provided shall be consistent with all applicable
agreements between the United States and Portugal, and all applicable
agreements with other foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (i)
nothing in the award of this blanket statement of authorization should
be construed as conferring upon United’s rights (including code-share,
fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where
U.S. carrier rights are limited unless United notifies us of its intent
to serve such market and unless and until the Department has completed
any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (ii) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included in United’s authority by virtue of the blanket statement of
authorization granted here, but that are not being used by United, the
holding of such authority will not be considered as providing any
preference for United in a carrier selection proceeding to determine
which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

(f) The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither United nor TAP shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

(g) We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Remarks: United and TAP intend to commence code-sharing on the city-pair
routes listed in Appendix A, effective August 22, 2005.  United
currently holds authority to all of the listed points for which it would
be holding out service except for Dakar, Senegal; Maputo, Mozambique;
and Sal, Cape Verde.  United is securing the exemption authority that it
needs for these three points by virtue of the action we are taking here.

We note that United has conducted a safety audit of TAP under the
Department’s Code-Share Safety Audit Program, and the FAA has advised
that it has reviewed the relevant audit program and found the program to
be acceptable.

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

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Dockets.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Appendix A

Markets Where the “UA*” Designator Code Will be Displayed on TAP’s
Flight

Lisbon – Newark/New York (USA)

Lisbon – Amsterdam (Netherlands)

Oporto – Amsterdam (Netherlands)

Lisbon – Brussels (Belgium)

Lisbon – Zurich (Switzerland)

Lisbon – Frankfort (Germany)

Lisbon – Munich (Germany)

Lisbon – London (U.K.)

Oporto – London (U.K.)

Lisbon – Barcelona (Spain)

Lisbon – Dakar (Senegal)

Lisbon – Faro (Portugal)

Lisbon – Funchal (Portugal)

Lisbon – Horta (Portugal)

Lisbon – Madrid (Spain)

Lisbon – Maputo (Mozambique)

Lisbon – Milan (Italy)

Lisbon – Oporto (Portugal)

Lisbon – Pico (Portugal)

Lisbon – Ponta Delgada (Portugal)

Lisbon – Porto Santo (Portugal)

Lisbon – Rome (Italy)

Lisbon – Sal (Cape Verde)

Lisbon – Terceira (Portugal)

Markets Where the “TP*” Designator Code Will be Displayed on United
Airlines’ Flight

Newark – Chicago (USA)

Newark – Denver (USA)

Newark – Los Angeles (USA)

Newark – San Francisco (USA)

Newark – Washington (USA)

Amsterdam (Netherlands) – Washington

Brussels (Belgium) – Washington

Frankfurt (Germany) – Washington

London (UK) – Washington

Munich (Germany) – Washington

Zurich (Switzerland) – Washington

Amsterdam (Netherlands) – Chicago

Frankfurt (Germany) – Chicago

London (U.K.) – Chicago

Munich (Germany) – Chicago

Frankfurt (Germany) – San Francisco

London (U.K.) – San Francisco

Munich (Germany) – San Francisco

London (U.K.) – Los Angeles

Appendix B

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

 United and TAP applied for these blanket statements of authorization
concurrently with United’s exemption request, and we are addressing
the award of the requested statements of authorization in the present
Notice.

 See Notices of Action Taken of January 24, 2005, and March 1, 2005, in
Docket OST-2004-19148.

 The code-share partners provided a listing of specific code-share
markets that they intend to initially serve under this arrangement.  We
have reproduced it as Appendix A of this Notice.  See Remarks below.

 Id.

 We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.

 The notice referenced in condition (c) above may be used for
t楨⁳潮楴楦慣楴湯മ


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53178-53179]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-539-000]

Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on August 22, 2014, Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC
(Ozark), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, filed an
application in Docket No. CP14-539-000 pursuant to Section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for its Ozark
Abandonment Project. Ozark seeks authorization to abandon by inter-
corporate transfer to an affiliate approximately 158.7 miles of
pipeline, located in Sebastian and White Counties, Arkansas, that will
be repurposed to refined petroleum products transportation service. In
addition, Ozark will disconnect and abandon 29 associated metering and
regulating facilities and other appurtenant facilities that will not be
converted to refined petroleum products transportation service. In
addition to the work required to perform the abandonment activities,
Ozark will perform work to re-pipe the existing Noark Compressor
Station to Ozark's 16-inch Line 2 pursuant to Section 2.55(a) of the
Commission's regulations, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open for 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 regarding the applications should be directed to Lisa
A. Connolly, General Manager, Rates and Certificates, Ozark Gas
Transmission, LLC, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, or by calling
(713) 627-4102 (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax)
<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 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 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 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. 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 commenter's 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 commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, 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 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: September 23, 2014.

    Dated: September 2, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21310 Filed 9-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 79261]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-1063]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Connecticut River, Old Lyme, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Amtrak Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge
across the Connecticut River, mile 3.4, at Old Lyme, Connecticut. This
deviation is necessary to perform gear box replacement. This deviation
allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for approximately 5
days.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7:00 a.m. on January 25, 2016
to 7:00 a.m. on February 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-1063] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project
Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: National Passenger Railroad Corporation
(Amtrak) requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating
schedule to perform gear box replacement.
    The Amtrak Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, mile 3.4, across the
Connecticut River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 19
feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low water. The existing
bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.205(b).
    The waterway is transited by one commercial user and recreation
vessel traffic.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Amtrak Old Saybrook-Old Lyme
Bridge may remain in the closed position from 7:00 a.m. on January 25,
2016 to 7:00 a.m. on January 30, 2016 with rain date from 7:00 a.m. on
February 1, 2016 to 7:00 a.m. on February 6, 2016.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may
do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies
and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 15, 2015.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-31939 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P