[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55804-55809]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17531]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98107; File No. SR-OCC-2023-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1, by the Options Clearing Corporation Concerning
Amendment of Its Recovery and Orderly Wind-Down Plan

August 10, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On June 7, 2023, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2023-005 pursuant to Section 19(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
\2\ thereunder. The proposed rule change would amend OCC's Recovery and
Orderly Wind-Down Plan (``RWD Plan'') by: (i) removing certain
supporting information; (ii) incorporating references to certain
documents and materials; (iii) implementing updates and amendments to
all six chapters of the proposed Plan; and (iv) updating and revising
the hypothetical stress scenarios set forth in Appendix A of the
proposed RWD Plan. The proposed rule change was published for public
comment in the Federal Register on June 27, 2023.\3\ The Commission has
received comments regarding the proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97785 (June 21, 2023),
88 FR 41695 (June 27, 2023) (File No. SR-OCC-2023-005) (``Notice of
Filing'').
    \4\ Comments on the Proposed Rule Change are available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2023-005/srocc2023005.htm. The
commenters raised a concern regarding the confidentiality of certain
exhibits. Id. OCC asserted that the exhibits to the filing were
entitled to confidential treatment because they contained commercial
and financial information that is not customarily released to the
public and is treated as the private information of OCC. Under
Section 23(a)(3) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is not required
to make public statements filed with the Commission in connection
with a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission could withhold the statements from the public in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA''), 5 U.S.C.
552. 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(3). The Commission has reviewed the documents
for which OCC requests confidential treatment and concludes that
they could be withheld from the public under the FOIA. FOIA
Exemption 4 protects confidential commercial or financial
information. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Under Exemption 4, information is
confidential if it ``is both customarily and actually treated as
private by its owner and provided to government under an assurance
of privacy.'' Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S.
Ct. 2356, 2366 (2019). In its requests for confidential treatment,
OCC stated that it has not disclosed the confidential exhibits to
the public, and the information is the type that would not
customarily be disclosed to the public. In addition, by requesting
confidential treatment, OCC had an assurance of privacy because the
Commission generally protects information that can be withheld under
Exemption 4. Thus, the Commission has determined to accord
confidential treatment to the confidential exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 28, 2023, OCC amended SR-OCC-2023-005 to correct an error
in the narrative summary of proposed rule changes (``Partial Amendment
No. 1''). Specifically, the narrative, as filed on June 7, 2023, stated
that OCC proposed to remove a section of the RWD Plan describing OCC's
Risk Management Framework. However, the relevant text was already
removed from the RWD Plan as part of a recent filing.\5\ The amendment
did not change the purpose or basis of the proposed rule change. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Partial
Amendment No. 1 from interested persons, and, for the reasons discussed
below, is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1 (hereinafter, the ``proposed rule change''), on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96566 (Dec. 22, 2022),
87 FR 80207 (Dec. 29, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2022-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    OCC is a central counterparty (``CCP''), which means it interposes
itself as the buyer to every seller and seller to every buyer for
financial transactions. As the CCP for the listed options markets in
the U.S., as well as for certain futures, OCC is exposed to certain
risks arising from its relationships with its members as well as
general business risk. OCC maintains various tools for managing such
risks.\6\ OCC also maintains tools to manage the risk of liquidity
shortfalls and credit losses that exceed its routine risk management
tools.\7\ OCC describes such tools and the governance related to them
in its RWD Plan.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96566 (Dec.
22, 2022), 87 FR 80207 (Dec. 29, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2022-010);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87718 (Dec. 11, 2019), 84 FR
68992 (Dec. 17, 2019) (File No. SR-OCC-2019-010); and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 88029 (Jan. 24, 2020), 85 FR 5500 (Jan. 30,
2020) (File No. SR-OCC-2019-007).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82351 (Dec. 19,
2017), 82 FR 61107 (Dec. 26, 2017) (File No. SR-OCC-2017-020).
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings
specified in OCC's Rules and By-Laws, available at https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83918 (Aug. 23,
2018), 83 FR 44091 (Aug. 29, 2018) (File No. SR-OCC-2017-021) (Order
approving the adoption of OCC's RWD Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the years, OCC has made substantive and non-substantive

changes to the RWD Plan.\9\ With regard to the substance of the RWD
Plan, OCC proposes to change the trigger events defined in the RWD
Plan. With regard to recovery, the changes would focus the trigger
events on OCC's ability to meet future obligations (as opposed to a
focus on current resources). With regard to wind-down, the changes
would clarify the Board's role in starting the wind-down process and
provide flexibility to avoid triggering a wind-down where recovery is
still a viable option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90712 (Dec.
17, 2020), 85 FR 84050 (Dec. 23, 2020) (File No. SR-OCC-2020-013)
(Order approving updates to OCCs RWD Plan to reflect changes to
OCC's capital structure resulting from the disapproval of OCC's
previously approved ``Capital Plan'' and the subsequent approval of
OCC's ``Capital Management Policy'' and implementing changes
identified during OCC's annual review of the RWD Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC also proposes to make a series of non-substantive changes,
including changes to improving the accuracy and consistency of
information in the RWD Plan by moving dynamic, contextual information
(e.g., annual volume data) out of the RWD Plan to a supporting document
that could more easily be maintained as such information changes from
time to time. Similarly, OCC proposes to strike language found in other
OCC sources from the RWD Plan to avoid potential future inconsistencies
across OCC's internal documentation. Further, OCC would update
information and references in the RWD Plan that are currently out of
date. Lastly, OCC proposes to streamline the hypothetical stress
scenarios describing how OCC would employ its recovery and wind-down
tools without affecting the substance covered in the scenarios.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ OCC also proposes conforming changes throughout the plan as
required by the changes described here (e.g., renumbering sections,
fixing grammar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Trigger Events

    Recovery Triggers. In its RWD Plan, OCC has identified events that
would indicate OCC is facing an extreme stress event that potentially
threatens OCC's viability, the occurrence of which would signal that
OCC has entered into recovery (the ``Recovery Trigger Events'').\11\
The RWD Plan currently defines a set of three such Recovery Trigger
Events arising out of (i) credit losses, (ii) liquidity shortfalls, and
(iii) operational losses and disruption. OCC proposes to revise the
credit and liquidity triggers and to separate the third trigger out
into two separate triggers based on operational disruptions and general
business losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Once in recovery, OCC would likely look to apply its
recovery tools, which include the ability of OCC to (i) levy
assessments against non-defaulting members; (ii) receive voluntary
payments from its non-defaulting members; (iii) allow non-defaulting
members and customers to voluntarily extinguish certain positions;
(iv) tear-up a defaulter's open positions; and (v) charge members a
fee to replenish OCC's capital in response to certain non-default
losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The credit loss-Recovery Trigger change is merely a rephrasing of
the current trigger clarify that it would be based on a 100 percent
depletion of the pre-funded Clearing Fund resources. OCC proposes to
change the liquidity shortfall Recovery Trigger to better align with
OCC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework. The current trigger focuses
on the inability to complete settlement within the time required. In
contrast, the proposed trigger would focus on the potential inability
to address foreseeable shortfalls.
    For events not triggered by a member default, OCC proposes to
replace the current trigger focused on loss and disruption into two
separate triggers, one of which would be based on loss and the other on
disruption. With regard to loss, OCC proposes to replace references to
operational loss with references to broader general business losses.
With regard to disruption, the trigger would continue to focus on the
disruption of critical services. Both the general business loss and
operational disruption triggers would focus on OCC having no reasonable
expectation of timely return to business as usual (i.e., meeting
minimum capital requirements or resumption of critical services).
    Wind-Down Triggers. Similar to the Recovery Trigger Events, OCC has
identified events that could jeopardize the viability of OCC's ability
to recover, the occurrence of which would signal the need for OCC to
initiate its Wind-Down Plan (Wind-Down Trigger Events). The RWD Plan
currently defines four Wind-Down Trigger Events that relate to (i) an
inability to comply with regulatory financial resource requirements;
(ii) a loss of confidence by members; (iii) the sustained disruption of
critical services; and (iv) modification or recission of an emergency
filed pursuant to Section 806(e)(2) of the Payment, Clearing, and
Settlement Supervision Act.\12\ To reduce the chance of initiating a
wind-down where a successful recovery would still be possible, OCC
proposes to replace the four Wind-Down Trigger Events with a single,
flexible trigger that grants discretion to OCC's Board of Directors.
The proposed trigger would rest on the Board's determination that OCC's
recovery efforts have not been or are unlikely to be successful in
returning OCC to viability as a going concern. The revised approach
would allow more flexible consideration of the facts and circumstances
of a given event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Changes for Consistency and Accuracy

    As noted above, OCC is also proposing a set of non-substantive
changes to the RWD Plan. Such changes (described further below) include
the (i) relocation of context and background information from the Plan
into a supplemental document; (ii) removal of duplicative information
maintained elsewhere in OCC's documentation; (iii) updating of
information in the plan that is out of date or inconsistent with
current practices; and (iv) streamlining of hypothetical stress
scenarios describing how OCC would employ its recovery and wind-down
tools. OCC also proposes grammatical and technical edits throughout the
entirety of the RWD Plan, such as modifying the use and location of
certain defined terms for improved readability, using initial
capitalization for term ``Clearing Member'' consistently throughout the
document, deleting unnecessary words, and modifying tense for clarity.
1. RWD Plan Supporting Information
    OCC's RWD Plan currently includes information related to OCC's
operations, management structure, personnel, support functions, banking
relationships, vendors, and key agreements. This supporting information
provides background and context for parties that are reviewing the RWD
Plan or using it as part of an actual recovery or wind-down event. OCC
is proposing to move supporting information from the RWD Plan to a
separate document (the ``RWD Plan Supporting Information''). Placing
such information in the RWD Plan Supporting Information would allow OCC
to maintain the accuracy of such information without revising OCC's
rules.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ OCC intends to review and update the RWD Plan Supporting
Information twice a year, or more frequently as needed. See Notice
of Filing, 88 FR at 41696.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would move portions from the current RWD,
such as significant portions of the existing ``Business Overview'' and
``Management Structure'' sections into the RWD Plan Supporting
Information document.\14\ OCC would also move

background information about OCC's 12 support functions from the RWD
Plan to the RWD Plan Supporting Information.\15\ The proposed rule
change would also move information and data subject to regular change
from the RWD Plan's description of OCC's clearing services to a similar
section of the RWD Plan Supporting Information. Lastly, OCC proposes to
move information about OCC's current settlement banks, custodian banks,
letter-of-credit banks, vendors needed to support recovery and wind-
down, and key agreements to be maintained, currently listed in several
of the RWD Plan Appendices, to the RWD Plan Supporting Information
document.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ OCC proposes to move the details of OCC's business overview
to Section 2.1 (``Business Overview'') of the RWD Plan Supporting
Information, details of OCC's management structure and executives to
Sections 2.2 (``Management Structure''), and details of its staffing
to Section 2.3 (``People'').
    \15\ In the RWD Plan Supporting Information, Chapter 3, OCC
would provide additional context on the Business Operations,
Corporate Risk Management and Security Services Departments.
    \16\ Specifically, OCC proposes to move information from current
Appendices E, F, G, H, and J to the new RWD Plan Supporting
Information document. Current Appendix E of the RWD Plan is a list
of OCC's current settlement banks; current Appendix F is a list of
OCC's current custodian banks; current Appendix G is a list of OCC's
current letter-of-credit banks; and current Appendix H is a list of
OCC's current vendors needed to support recovery and wind-down. OCC
also intends to provide additional information about its Tier 1
vendors (i.e., vendors that involve or materially support critical
processes) in the RWD Plan Supporting Information. The information
in these RWD Plan Appendices would be moved to Chapter 4
(``Interconnectedness'') of the RWD Plan Supporting Information.
Current Appendix J of the RWD Plan includes information on OCC's key
agreements to be maintained with third-party products and services.
This would be moved to Chapter 5 (``Key Agreements to be
Maintained'') of the RWD Plan Supporting Information. This new
Chapter 5 itself does not list the agreements with the third-party
products and services, but provides a link to OCC's internal
SharePoint website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Removal of Duplicative Information
    OCC proposes to remove information from the RWD Plan to the extent
OCC already maintains such information elsewhere. The purpose of
removing duplicative information is to reduce the complexity of
maintaining information that could lead to inconsistencies across
multiple documents. For example, OCC proposes to replace financial
information currently set forth in the RWD Plan with a link to the
section of OCC's website that displays OCC's Annual Reports, which
include OCC's audited financial statements, and a link to OCC's fee
schedule, which depicts the Target Capital Requirement.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Current Appendix D of the RWD Plan would be removed
altogether. OCC proposes to add the link to OCC's annual reports and
audited financial statements to current section 2.6 (``Financial
Summary'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Updating of Inaccurate or Outdated Information
    OCC also proposes to update text in the RWD Plan that was either
inaccurate in its original form, or is no longer consistent with OCC's
current practices. For example, in Chapter 1 of the Plan, OCC proposes
to change the language related to expense assumptions during a
resolution process, to convey the intended meaning of the assumption
more accurately.\18\ OCC proposes to update outdated descriptions of
its services and facilities in Chapter 2 of the RWD Plan.\19\ In
Chapter 3 of the Plan, OCC proposes to update the descriptions of its
pricing and valuation services by adding detail on the processes and
eliminating specific data that become outdated quickly because it is
subject to frequent changes (e.g., trading data from 2019, such as the
average daily gross volume of options contracts cleared, the average
daily gross value of premium exchanged, etc.). OCC also proposes
removing a reference to letter of credit banks from Section 3.5 because
letter of credit banks comprise less than 0.1 percent of margin pledged
to OCC. Further, OCC proposes conforming changes describing critical
support functions the document that would reflect OCC's internal
employee reporting structure and to provide a more granular view into
the departments that make up each support function. In Chapter 5 of the
Plan, OCC proposes to update timing, cost, and employee assumptions to
reflect the results an of internal review. OCC also proposes replacing
a discussion of heightened capital requirements with discussion of
increased financial reporting for members consistent with OCC's Rule
306 and 307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The language would change from ``stay at historical normal
levels during the wind-down period'' to ``generally follow the
annual budget with timing and staffing considerations.''
    \19\ OCC also proposes adding links to the RWD Plan that would
point a reader to up-to-date information more generally, which is
consistent with the changes to remove duplicative information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the updates regarding current practice, OCC proposes to
change how it describes its existing enhanced risk management tools
(e.g., margin and Clearing Fund collateral) in the RWD Plan.\20\ For
example, OCC proposes to clarify the inclusion of executive
compensation as a component of its ``skin in the game'' consistent with
current OCC Rule 1006(e)(i).\21\ OCC also proposes to expand the list
of enhanced risk management tools described Section 4 of the Plan to
include its existing assessment powers for managing a member default
pursuant to OCC's Rule 1006, as well as several tools related to the
management of risks other than a member's default: (i) insurance
coverage, (ii) a working line of credit, (iii) authority to increase
fees, and (iv) authority to extend settlement time pursuant to OCC rule
505.\22\ The changes are intended to reflect a more complete list of
tools that OCC may use to respond to extreme stress scenarios.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ OCC is not proposing to remove or significantly change four
of the five current enhanced risk management tools, but merely to
align descriptions in the Plan with OCC's current thinking.
    \21\ OCC already has authority to use such executive
compensation, and is now updating the Plan for consistency with its
current rules. The proposed revisions would add detail to the
description already provided in the Plan.
    \22\ The proposed changes include both addition of such tools to
the list of enhanced risk management tools as well as the addition
of more detailed description of tools and how they operate.
    \23\ OCC also proposes to conform the RWD discussion of minimum
clearing fund cash to other sections discussing risk management
tools by removing a paragraph discussing the expected impact and
incentives related to the tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Hypothetical Scenarios
    Consistent with the revised risk management tool descriptions, OCC
proposes to revise the hypothetical scenarios described in Chapter 7 of
the RWD Plan. The hypothetical scenarios describe how OCC would deploy
its risk management and recovery tools to respond to potential events
such as a member default or settlement bank disruption. OCC is
proposing updates to the hypothetical scenarios to reflect current data
and operational procedures as well as to resolve grammatical issues.
For example, OCC proposes to incorporate recent data regarding peak
liquidity demands; the cash component of the Clearing Fund; and the two
largest Clearing Fund contributions made by Clearing Members. OCC also
proposes to remove references to energy futures and options and
eliminate a related note indicating that the products reflected in this
scenario may not be reflective of products cleared by OCC. Similarly,
OCC would update references to settlement time for consistency with
OCC's Rule 101.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94950 (May 19,
2022), 87 FR 31916 (May 25, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2022-004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC is also proposing to revise the hypothetical scenarios in which
OCC would clarify current roles and responsibilities to ensure that the
descriptions set forth in this scenario align with OCC's current
practices and procedures. For example, the revised Plan would reflect
the Head of Default Management's role in recommending an extension of
settlement timing to OCC's Office of the CEO. Similarly, OCC

proposes various changes to expand the description of roles and
responsibilities related to its stock loan program under a scenario in
which the Depository Trust Company is inaccessible (e.g., describing
the roles of the Collateral Services and Members Services teams with
regard to notifications and escalations).
    Lastly, OCC proposes combining the fact patterns presented of two
of its hypothetical scenarios. Specifically, OCC would combine
scenarios focused on cyberattack and member default to describe how OCC
would respond to such a combined set of stresses. The combination of
scenarios would require certain changes in assumptions and data, but
would not affect OCC's available risk management and recovery tools.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such organization.\25\ After carefully
considering the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to OCC. More
specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act,\26\ and Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(3)(ii) \27\ thereunder as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other
things, that a clearing agency's rules are designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a central counterparty, it is important for OCC to have a plan
in place to address extreme stresses or crises with the aim of
maintaining OCC's viability and ability to provide critical services.
In the event that OCC's recovery efforts are not successful, the RWD
Plan would seek to increase the possibility that a resolution of OCC's
operations could be conducted in an orderly manner. The Commission
continues to believe that OCC specifying the steps that it would take
in either a recovery or orderly wind-down would enhance OCC's ability
to address circumstances specific to an extreme stress event.\29\ The
Commission also continues to believe that, by increasing the likelihood
that recovery would be orderly, efficient, and successful, the RWD Plan
enhances OCC's ability to maintain the continuity of its critical
services (including clearance and settlement services) during, through,
and following periods of extreme stress giving rise to the need for
recovery, thereby promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90712 (Dec. 17,
2020), 85 FR 84050, 84051 (Dec. 23, 2020) (File No. SR-OCC-2020-
013).
    \30\ See id. at 84052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As above, OCC proposes to make changes to the trigger events
defined in the RWD Plan. With regard to recovery, the changes primarily
shift focus to OCC's ability to meet future obligations in recovery.
These changes continue to provide a roadmap for actions OCC may employ
to monitor and manage its risks, and, as needed, to stabilize its
financial condition in the event those risks materialize with a focus
on its ability to continue providing critical services. Maintaining
OCC's ability to continue providing clearance and settlement services
would reduce the likelihood of disruption to the markets it service and
is consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions.
    With regard to wind-down, OCC proposes clarifying the role of the
Board in making a wind-down determination and consolidating its current
Wind-Down Trigger Events into a trigger based on a scenario's specific
facts and circumstances. The propose changed would provide more
flexibility and could potentially cover a wider variety of scenarios,
including actual insolvency events, that could affect OCC. The
clarification of the Board's role is consistent with prior Commission
statements regarding the importance of governance in the design of
recovery and wind-down plans.\31\ The changes would therefore increase
the likelihood that OCC could continue providing critical services,
thus promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See e.g., Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (Sept. 28, 2016), 81 FR
70786, 70809 (Oct. 13, 2016) (File No. S7-03014) (``Covered Clearing
Agency Standards Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the importance of a clearing agency's recovery and wind-down
plan, such plans should be carefully and maintained to ensure that both
the clearing agency and the relevant regulators have up-to-date
information when such a plan is implemented. As described above, OCC
proposes a number of changes designed to update the current plan and
provide for the future maintenance of relevant information.
Specifically, the proposal includes the (i) relocation of context and
background information from the Plan into a supplemental document; (ii)
removal of duplicative information maintained elsewhere in OCC's
documentation; (iii) updating of information in the plan that is out of
date or inconsistent with current practices; and (iv) streamlining of
hypothetical stress scenarios describing how OCC would employ its
recovery and wind-down tools.
    The Commission believes, therefore, that the proposal is consistent
with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) Under the Exchange Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires that a
covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound
risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit,
liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and
other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency,
which includes plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of the
covered clearing agency necessitated by credit losses, liquidity
shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission stressed the importance of the context of the
recovery plan and clearing agency as a whole when assessing the utility
of a particular approach to establishing trigger criteria.\34\ As
described above, OCC proposes changes that would focus its Recovery
Trigger Events on OCC's ability to meet its future obligations in
recovery. OCC also proposes separating out operational disruptions from
general business losses, which would provide more granularity in
describing its trigger events. With regard to wind-down, OCC proposes
to replace four triggers with one flexible trigger. Such a change,
while reducing granularity, may cover a

wider range of potential scenarios.\35\ Further, the revised Wind-Down
Event Trigger would specify the Board's role in determining whether to
trigger an orderly wind-down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
    \35\ The Commission approved a similar single wind-down trigger
event for the National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'').
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83974 (Aug. 28, 2018), 83 FR
44988 (Sept. 4, 2018). NSCC Rule 42 authorizes NSCC's Board to
authorize initiation of NSCC's wind-down plan if it determines that
application of NSCC's recovery tools either (i) has not restored or
likely will not restore NSCC to viability or (ii) that implementing
the wind-down plan is in the best interests of NSCC, its
shareholders and creditors, members, and the U.S. financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), the Commission provided
guidance, stating that a covered clearing agency generally should
consider, among other things, whether it has provided relevant
resolution authorities with the information needed for purposes of
recovery and resolution planning.\36\ As described above, OCC proposes
non-substantive updates focused primarily on keeping information
accurate and up-to-date. To achieve this focus, OCC proposes (i)
relocating of context and background information from the Plan into a
supplemental document; (ii) removing of duplicative information
maintained elsewhere in OCC's documentation; (iii) updating of
information in the plan that is out of date or inconsistent with
current practices; and (iv) streamlining of hypothetical stress
scenarios describing how OCC would employ its recovery and wind-down
tools., OCC proposes the removal of background and supporting
information from the RWD Plan into a new and separate Supporting
Information document. The Commission believes that, in moving such
information to a separate document, resolution authorities will still
be able to use the RWD Plan to identify the support functions that are
necessary to maintain critical services and operations, yet also cross-
reference to additional detail in the RWD Plan Supporting Information
as needed. OCC also proposes the removing duplicative information and
providing links to other sources of information, such as the OCC's
website, which would allow OCC to update any supporting information in
only one place, thus reducing the risk of providing redundant
information. OCC is also proposing to update outdated information and
to streamline its hypothetical stress scenarios to reflect current OCC
operations more accurately. The Commission believes that the proposed
non-substantive updates will make the information provided in the RWD
Plan more accurate and useful; provide a more accurate and usable
playbook for OCC or source of information for a resolution authority;
eliminate the risk that the RWD Plan may not contain current
information; support OCC's ability to use risk management and recovery
tools effectively to bring about a recovery by clarifying which tools
may be most effective for different situations or needs; and eliminate
redundancy across OCC's by-laws and rules. As such, the non-substantive
changes would provide a more up-to-date set of information for the
relevant authorities to carry out any needed recovery and resolution
planning more expeditiously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Covered Clearing Agency Standards Adopting Release, 81
FR at 70810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes, therefore, that the proposal is consistent
with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) under the Exchange
Act.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Partial Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed
Rule Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-OCC-2023-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-OCC-2023-005. 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 of submission. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Comments are also available for website 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Operating conditions may limit access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in
part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is
obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should
refer to File Number SR-OCC-2023-005 and should be submitted on or
before September 6, 2023.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Exchange Act,\38\ to approve the proposed rule change prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of
Partial Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. As discussed above,
Partial Amendment No. 1 modified the original proposed rule change to
correct an error in the narrative summary of proposed rule changes.
Partial Amendment No. 1 does not change the purpose of or basis for the
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons as discussed above, the Commission finds that
Partial Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the requirement that OCC's
rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Exchange Act.\39\ Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, to approve the
proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, on an
accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, and in
particular, the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act \41\
and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\42\ that the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2023-005), as
modified by Partial

Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17531 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 9)]
[
Notices]
[Page 1783-1784]
[DOCID:fr16ja07-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55045; File No. SR-Amex-2007-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Options Fee Changes

January 5, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 4, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Amex. The Amex has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-
regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Amex proposes to modify its Options Fee Schedule. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Amex, on the Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, and at the Commission's Public Reference

Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend its Options Fee schedule to
eliminate the licensing fee of $0.10 a contract which is currently
charged on options on the iShares Russell 1000 Index Fund (symbol:
IWB), the iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund (symbol: IWF), the
iShares Russell 1000 Value Index Fund (symbol: IWD), the iShares
Russell 2000 Index Fund (symbol: IWM), the iShares Russell 2000 Growth
Index Fund (symbol: IWO), the iShares Russell 2000 Value Index Fund
(symbol: IWN), and the iShares Russell 3000 Index Fund (symbol: IWV)
(collectively, the ``ETF Options'').
    The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the licensing fee applicable
to the ETF Options as of January 3, 2007 due to the termination of
existing licensing agreements on December 31, 2006.
    The Exchange asserts that the proposal is equitable as required by
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 6(b)(4) requires that the rules of a national
securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and
issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \6\ regarding the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among exchange members and other persons using
exchange facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder \8\ because it establishes or changes a member due,
fee, or other charge. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2007-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the Amex.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-02
and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-381 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


APPENDIX F

MOBILE6.2 Input Parameter Summary

Table 1: General Parameters and Options

Input parameter	Summer Wkd

Output Pollutants	VOC, NOX

Analysis Day	Avg Weekday               (Jun, Jul, Aug)

Counties	Cecil

Traffic Data

SHA Universal Highway Database

Source Data Year	2005

HPMS VMT Adjustment Year	2005

SHA Seasonal Factor Data	2005

SHA Hourly Pattern Data	2005

MOBILE6 Defaults Used to

Disaggregate Auto, Truck, Bus, MC Vehicle Mix Categories	2005

Traffic Volume Forecasted Growth 	Extrapolated growth based on 1990-2005 HPMS VMT

M6 Parameters

Emissions

Calendar Year	2009

Evaluation Month	7 (July)

Season	1 - Summer

CAAA Standards	Enabled

Tier2 Standards	Enabled

2007 HDDV Rule	Enabled

North-East NLEV	Included

Refueling Emissions	Not Included

Registration Data	2005 from MDE

Diesel Sales Fractions	2005 from MDE

VMT by Hour	2005 Local Data

(varies by cty, fc)

VMT by Facility	Each facility run as

separate scenario

VMT by Speed	Calculated by PPSUITE

Table 2: Inspection/Maintenance Program Input Parameters

MOBILE6 I/M

Test Types:	2009

I/M Program	EVAP OBD & GC	OBD I/M	IM240*	IDLE	IDLE

Program Start Year	2002	1984	1984	1984	1984

I/M Stringency

20.0	20.0	20.0	20.0

I/M Model Years

	First Year	1996	1996	1984	1977	1977

Last Year	2050	2050	1995	2050	1983

I/M Waiver Rates

	Pre-81 Model Years	5.4%	5.4%	13.8%	13.8%	13.8%

Post-81 Model Years	5.4%	5.4%	13.8%	13.8%	13.8%

I/M Compliance	96.0%	96.0%	96.0%	96.0%	96.0%

Program Type:

Test Only (T/O)

Test & Repair computerized (TRC)

Test & Repair Manual (TRM)	T/O	T/0	T/O	T/O	T/O

Inspection Frequency

Annual / Biennial	2	2	2	2	2

I/M Vehicles

1 = I/M Benefits not calculated

2 = I/M Benefits calculated

	LDGV	2	2	2	1	2

LDGT1	2	2	2	1	2

LDGT2	2	2	2	1	2

LDGT3	2	2	2	1	2

LDGT4	2	2	2	1	2

HDGV2B	1	1	1	2	1

HDGV3	1	1	1	2	1

HDGV4	1	1	1	2	1

HDGV5	1	1	1	2	1

HDGV6	1	1	1	2	1

HDGV7	1	1	1	1	1

HDGV8A	1	1	1	1	1

HDGV8B	1	1	1	1	1

GAS BUS	1	1	1	1	1

I/M Grace Period	2	2	2	2	2

* Uses 75% Cutpoints for 2009 and varies by year.Table 3: Anti-Tampering Program Input Parameters

ATP Parameters	Cecil County

Program Start Year	89

I/M Model Years

	First Year	77

Last Year	83

I/M Vehicles

1 = I/M Benefits not calculated

2 = I/M Benefits calculated

	LDGV	2

LDGT1	2

LDGT2	2

LDGT3	2

LDGT4	2

HDGV2B	2

HDGV3	2

HDGV4	2

HDGV5	2

HDGV6	2

HDGV7	1

HDGV8A	1

HDGV8B	1

GAS BUS	1

Inspection Frequency:

Annual

Biennial	2

I/M Compliance	96.0%

Inspections Performed:

1 = Not Performed

2 = Performed

	Air Pump System	1

Catalyst Removal	2

Fuel Inlet Restrictor	2

Tailpipe Lead Deposit Test	1

EGR System	1

Evaporative Control System	1

PCV System	1

Gas Cap	2

		  PAGE  1

 PAGE

  PAGE  1

Appendix C-3


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 12847]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. PR08-30-000, PR07-12-003, and PR07-12-004]

Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC; Notice of Technical Conference

March 18, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference
in the above-captioned proceeding on Tuesday, April 14, 2009, at 10
a.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. 20426.
    The Commission's February 27, 2009 Order in the above-captioned
proceeding,\1\ directed that a technical conference be held to discuss
Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC's (Enterprise Texas) proposed incremental
rates for firm and interruptible transportation services and the issues
raised with respect to the Statement of Operating Conditions. At the
conference, Commission Staff and interested persons will have the
opportunity to discuss all of the issues raised by Enterprise Texas's
filing including, but not limited to, technical, engineering and
operational issues; rate and cost issues; and any issues raised in the
protests and data requests. Enterprise Texas should be prepared to
address all the concerns raised in the protests, to discuss answers to
the data requests, to discuss technical, engineering and operational
issues, to discuss rate and cost issues, and to provide, as necessary,
additional support for its filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC, 126 FERC ] 61,183 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    All interested parties and staff are permitted to attend. For
further information please contact Rita Johnson at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6499 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 97 (Monday, May 22, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23166-23169]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0480; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-204-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series
airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively
called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by cracking in the door sill
area of the aft cargo door. This proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections of the aft cargo door lower torsion box area, and
corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0480; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0480;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-204-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0241, dated December 6, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-
605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series
airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Cracks were found on in-service aeroplane post mod 5438 in the
door sill area, from frame (FR) 60 to FR63, including the sill beam
flag, lock fitting, door sill web and torsion door panel. Two
previous cases with less crack extent were also reported.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
reduced structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus published Inspection
Service Bulletin (SB) A310-53-2139 and SB A300-53-6179 to provide
inspection instructions for the affected areas. Airbus published
also Airbus SB A310-53-2141 and SB A300-53-6181 to provide
modification instructions.
    Further analysis showed that aeroplanes pre-mod 5438, for which
one or several lock fittings have been replaced by post mod 10319
lock fittings, could also be affected. Airbus published SB A310-53-
2143 and SB A300-53-6185 to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive Special Detailed Inspections (SDI) of the aft cargo door
lower torsion box area and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s).

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0480.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6185, dated February
11, 2016; and Service Bulletin A310-53-2143, dated February 11, 2016;
which describe, among other actions, repetitive inspections of the aft
cargo door sill area for cracking. These documents are distinct since
they apply to different airplane models. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 18 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.......................  12 work-hours x $85              $0  $1,020 per           $18,360 per
                                    per hour = $1,020                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition corrective actions specified in
this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:

General requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA
with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by
prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses
an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products
identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0480; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
204-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 6, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this AD; certificated
in any category; except those on which Airbus Modification 5438 was
embodied in production.
    (1) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
    (2) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (3) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    (5) Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by cracking in the door sill area of the
aft cargo door. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking of the door sill area of the aft cargo; such cracking could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Within the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracking of the door sill area (including the sill
beam flag, lock fitting, door sill web, and torsion door panel) of
the aft cargo door lower torsion box area, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6185,
dated February 11, 2016; or Service Bulletin A310-53-2143, dated
February 11, 2016; as applicable. Repeat the HFEC inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,100 flight cycles.

         Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD--Initial Inspection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Airplane configuration                  Compliance time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repaired (date known), post-Airbus       Before exceeding 25,800 flight
 Modification 10319 lock fittings         cycles since the lock fitting
 installed using Airbus Structural        replacement.
 Repair Manual (SRM) Task 51-72-00.
Repaired (no record, date unknown),      Before exceeding 25,800 flight
 post-Airbus Modification 10319 lock      cycles from November 1, 1996.
 fittings installed using Airbus SRM
 Task 51-72-00.
Non-repaired airplane, or airplane       No inspection required.
 repaired with pre-Airbus Modification
 10319 lock fittings using Airbus SRM
 Task 51-72-00.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6185, dated February 11, 2016; or Service Bulletin
A310-53-2143, dated February 11, 2016; as applicable; except, where
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6185, dated February 11, 2016; or
Service Bulletin A310-53-2143, dated February 11, 2016; specifies to
contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as
``RC'' (Required for Compliance), before further flight, accomplish
corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action

    Repair of an airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by

the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0241, dated December 6, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-0480.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 12, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10140 Filed 5-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 49044]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19983]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67632; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Option Contracts Overlying 10 Shares of a
Security

August 9, 2012.
    On June 15, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
option contracts overlying 10 shares of a security. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 3,
2012.\3\ The Commission received two comment letters on this
proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67283 (June 27,
2012), 77 FR 39535.
    \4\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Christopher Nagy, President, KOR Trading LLC, dated July 10,
2012 and Edward T. Tilly, President and Chief Operating Officer,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, dated July 24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is August 17, 2012. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, which would
allow the listing of a new type of options product, the comment letters
that have been submitted in connection with this proposed rule change,
and any response to the comment letters submitted by the Exchange.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates October 1, 2012 as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
NYSEArca-2012-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19983 Filed 8-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 87921]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29221]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-15-000]

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on November 15, 2016, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP
(Cove Point), 707 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, filed in Docket
No. CP17-15-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting
authorization of its Eastern Market Access Project (Project) consisting
of one new compressor station, additional compression at an existing
station, and re-wheeling of a compressor unit at an existing compressor
station for an increase of 31,370 horsepower in Charles County,
Maryland and Loudon and Fairfax Counties, Virginia. The Project would
also construct two new delivery taps in Charles County, Maryland. The
Project would cost approximately $147.3 million and would enable
294,000 dekatherms per day of firm natural gas transportation service
to Washington Gas Light Company and Mattawoman Energy, LLC, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. This filing may 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, please contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Salud Astruc, Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion Cove Point LNG,
LP, 707 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or by telephone at
(866) 319-3382.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 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: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 21, 2016.

    Dated: November 30, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29221 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67798-67799]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27689]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63198; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-151]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing Fees

October 27, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 25, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its fees governing pricing for
Exchange members using the Phlx XL II system,\3\ for routing
standardized equity and index option Customer and Professional orders
to away markets for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a complete description of Phlx XL II, see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3,
2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). The instant proposed fees will apply only
to option orders entered into, and routed by, the Phlx XL II system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While fee changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative upon
the effectiveness of SR-C2-2010-006.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to recoup costs that the
Exchange incurs for routing and executing Customer and Professional
orders in equity and index options to away markets.
    In May 2009, the Exchange adopted Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A) to establish
Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the Exchange, as the
Exchange's exclusive order router.\4\ NOS is utilized by the Phlx XL II
system solely to route orders in options listed and open for trading on
the Phlx XL II system to destination markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange's Fee Schedule includes Routing Fees for
both Customer and Professional orders. The Exchange proposes to assess
a Routing Fee of $.21 per contract in Customer option orders and $.46
per contract in Professional option orders that are routed to C2
Options Exchange, Inc. (``C2''). The Exchange is proposing to caption
these proposed fees ``C2.''
    The Exchange is proposing these fees in order to recoup most
clearing charges which are incurred by the Exchange when orders are
routed to these away markets as well as a transaction charge which is
assessed by C2.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See C2 Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing these fees to recoup the majority of
transaction and clearing costs associated with routing Customer and
Professional orders to each destination market. The Exchange believes
that the routing fees proposed will enable the Exchange to recover the
transaction fees assessed by away markets, where applicable, plus
clearing fees for the execution of

Customer and Professional orders routed from the Phlx XL II system. As
with all fees, the Exchange may adjust these Routing Fees in response
to competitive conditions by filing a new proposed rule change.
    While fee changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative upon
the effectiveness of SR-C2-2010-006.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that these fees are
reasonable because they seek to recoup costs that are incurred by the
Exchange when routing Customer and Professional orders to C2 on behalf
of its members. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees to
both Customers and Professionals are equitable because it will be
uniformly applied to all Customers and Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-151 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-151. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2010-151 and should be submitted on or before November 24, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27689 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55253-55254]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22027]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9900-84-OA]

Notification of Public Teleconference of the Hydraulic Fracturing
Research Advisory Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the
Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel to receive written and
oral comments from the public on new and emerging information related
to hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources.

DATES: The public teleconference will be held on November 20, 2013,
from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time).

ADDRESSES: The teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning the teleconference may contact Mr.
Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory
Board (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voicemail at (202) 564-
2134, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General
information concerning the SAB can be found on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA),
codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and
technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency
positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C.,
App. 2. The SAB and the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory
Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB
Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy,
notice is hereby given that the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research
Advisory Panel will hold a public teleconference to receive written and
oral comments from the public on new and emerging information related
to hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources.
    In response to public concern, in August 2010 Congress urged EPA to
study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water.
In March 2013, the SAB Staff Office formed an SAB panel to provide
individual expert advice for the EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) on its ongoing research on the potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. Information about
panel formation and activities can be found at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21ef85256eba00436459/b436304ba804e3f885257a5b00521b3b!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.0#2.
    The Panel held a May 7-8, 2013 meeting in Arlington Virginia where
individual members of the Panel provided their individual expert
comments on charge questions associated with research described in
ORD's Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on
Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report, released in December 2012.
At the May 2013 meeting, the SAB Staff Office announced there would be
opportunity for the public to provide new and emerging information
related to hydraulic fracturing to the Panel. The information provided
to the Panel will serve as background to assist the Panel in its review
of the EPA's draft report on the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources. This report is scheduled for
completion in December 2014. The SAB will hold a public teleconference
to provide opportunity to receive information from the public.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and other materials
in support of the November 20, 2013 teleconference call will be
available on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab in advance of
the teleconference call.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office.
    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific
advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of
the public can submit relevant comments for consideration by the Panel.
Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it
provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for
the SAB to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the
technical information.
    For the November 20, 2013 telephone conference meeting, members of
the public are encouraged to provide written and oral comments on new
and emerging information related to hydraulic fracturing and drinking
water resources. Members of the public wishing to provide comment
should contact the DFO directly.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a public teleconference

will be limited to five minutes. Persons interested in providing oral
statements at the November 20, 2013 teleconference meeting should
contact Mr. Hanlon at the contact information provided above by
November 13, 2013.
    Written Statements: Written statements for the November 20, 2013
teleconference meeting should be received in the SAB Staff Office by
November 13, 2013, so that the information may be made available to the
SAB for its consideration prior to this meeting and teleconference
call. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following
formats: either an electronic copy (preferred), via email (acceptable
file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, WordPerfect, MS PowerPoint, or
Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format), or in hard copy.
Submitters are asked to provide electronic versions of each document
submitted without signatures, because the SAB Staff Office does not
publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the
public should be aware that their personal contact information, if
included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site.
Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of
the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Hanlon, at the phone
number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior
to the meeting and teleconference call, to give the EPA as much time as
possible to process your request.

    Dated: August 29, 2013.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-22027 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P