[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2420-2421]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER20-758-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 5556;
Queue No. AE1-123 to be effective 12/10/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200109-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-759-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Request for Limited Conditional Waiver of ISO-NE
Tariff of Section III.13.1.10(b) of ISO New England Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200108-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-760-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Orginal WMPA SA No. 5557;
Queue No. AE2-057 to be effective 12/11/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200109-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-761-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to SAs No. 5128,
5260, 5375, 5376, and 5377 to be effective 6/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200109-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-762-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State Master
Installation, O M Agmt for Metering (Rev 3) to be effective 3/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200109-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 9, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00513 Filed 1-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34010-34011]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Part 43

[Docket No. OCC-2011-0002]
RIN 1557-AD40

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 244

[Docket No. 2011-1411]
RIN 7100-AD 70

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 373

RIN 3064-AD74

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 246

[Release No. 34-64603; File No. S7-14-11]
RIN 3235-AK96

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

12 CFR Part 1234

RIN 2590-AA43

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 267

RIN 2501-AD53

Credit Risk Retention

AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC);
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (Commission); Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA); and
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On April 29, 2011, the OCC, Board, FDIC, Commission, FHFA and
HUD (collectively, the ``Agencies'') published in the Federal Register
a joint notice of proposed rulemaking for public comment to implement
the credit risk retention requirements of section 15G of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as added by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (``Credit Risk NPR'' or ``proposed rule'').
    Due to the complexity of the rulemaking and to allow parties more
time to consider the impact of the Credit Risk NPR on affected markets,
the Agencies have determined that an extension of the comment period
until August 1, 2011, is appropriate. This action will allow interested
persons additional time to analyze the proposed rules and prepare their
comments.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published April 29,
2011, at 76 FR 24090, is extended. Comments on the Credit Risk NPR must
be received on or before August 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the methods identified in
the Credit Risk NPR. Please submit your comments using only one method.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OCC: Chris Downey, Risk Specialist, Financial Markets Group, (202) 874-
4660; Kevin Russell, Director, Retail Credit Risk,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Darrin Benhart, Director, Commercial Credit Risk,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Jamey Basham, Assistant Director, or Carl Kaminski, Senior Attorney,
Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20219.
Board: Benjamin W. McDonough, Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>; April C. Snyder,
Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Sebastian R. Astrada, Attorney, (202) 452-
3594; or Flora H. Ahn, Attorney,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Legal Division; Thomas
R. Boemio, Manager,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Donald N. Gabbai, Senior
Supervisory Financial Analyst,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Sviatlana A. Phelan,
Financial Analyst,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of Banking Supervision and
Regulation; Andreas Lehnert, Deputy Director, Office of Financial
Stability Policy and Research,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Brent Lattin,
Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets,
NW., Washington, DC 20551.
FDIC: Beverlea S. Gardner, Special Assistant to the Chairman, (202)
898-3640; Mark L. Handzlik, Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Phillip E. Sloan,
Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Petrina R. Dawson, Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Jeannette Roach, Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.
Commission: Jay Knight, Special Counsel, or Katherine Hsu, Chief,
Office of Structured Finance, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202)
551-3753, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-3628.
FHFA: Patrick J. Lawler, Associate Director and Chief Economist,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 414-3746; Austin Kelly, Associate
Director for Housing Finance Research<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
343-1336; Phillip Millman, Principal Capital Markets Specialist,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 343-1507; or Thomas E. Joseph, Senior
Attorney Advisor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 414-3095; Federal
Housing Finance Agency, Third Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC
20552. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the
Hearing Impaired is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
HUD: Robert C. Ryan, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal
Housing Commissioner, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 9100, Washington, DC
20410; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> (this is not a toll-free
number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay
Service at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 29, 2011, the Credit Risk NPR was
published in the Federal Register.\1\ The Credit Risk NPR proposes to
implement the credit risk retention requirements of section 15G of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-11), as added by section
941 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(``Dodd-Frank Act''). Section 15G generally requires the securitizer of
asset-backed securities (``ABS'') to retain an economic interest of no
less than five percent in the credit risk of the assets collateralizing
the ABS. Section 15G includes a variety of exemptions from this
requirement, including an exemption for asset-backed securities that
are collateralized exclusively by ``qualified residential mortgages,''
as such term is defined by the Agencies by rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 76 FR 24090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Credit Risk NPR would specify credit risk retention
requirements for securitizers of ABS. In designing the proposed rules,
the Agencies sought to ensure that the amount of credit risk retained
would be meaningful--consistent with the purposes of section 15G--while
reducing the potential for the proposed rules to negatively affect the
availability and cost of credit to

consumers and businesses. In recognition of the complexities of the
rulemaking and the variety of considerations involved in its impact and
implementation, the Agencies requested that commenters respond to
numerous questions. The Credit Risk NPR stated that the public comment
period would close on June 10, 2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agencies have received requests from the public for an
extension of the comment period to allow for sufficient time for data
gathering and impact analyses related to the provisions of the proposed
rule.\3\ The Agencies believe that it is important for interested
persons to have additional time to fully review the provisions of the
proposed rule and the questions posed by the Agencies, and to conduct
appropriate data collection and analysis on the potential impact of the
Credit Risk NPR prior to submitting comment. Therefore, the Agencies
are extending the comment period for the Credit Risk NPR from June 10,
2011 to August 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., comment letters to the Agencies from American
Bankers Association et al. (May 13, 2011) and The Loan Syndications
and Trading Association (May 26, 2011); and press release from
Realogy Corporation (May 10, 2011).

    Dated: June 3, 2011.
John Walsh,
Acting Comptroller of the Currency.
    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, acting through the Secretary under delegated authority, June
6, 2011.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
    Dated at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of June 2011.
    By order of the Board of Directors. Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Dated: June 6, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
    Dated: June 2, 2011.
Edward J. Demarco,
Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    Jointly prescribed with the Agencies.
    By the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    Dated: June 6, 2011.
Robert C. Ryan,
Acting Assistant Secretary Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2011-14444 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P; BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; BILLING CODE 6210-01-P;
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P; BILLING CODE 8070-01-P; BILLING CODE 4210-67-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 718-720]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9109; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-011-AD;
Amendment 39-18761; AD 2016-26-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly
Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-23-02 for
all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200,
CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. AD 2013-23-02 required an inspection
of the feeder cables of certain fuel booster pumps for damage
(including, but not limited to, signs of electrical arcing and fuel
leaks), and replacement if necessary. This new AD retains those
requirements and also requires modification of the electrical
installation of the fuel booster pumps. This AD was prompted by a
report of an in-flight problem with the fuel transfer system. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 8, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 8,
2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of
December 2, 2013 (78 FR 68688, November 15, 2013).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact EADS CASA (Airbus Defense and Space), Services/Engineering
Support, Avenida de Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone:
+34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 31 27; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-9109.

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-2016-
9109; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-
647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, 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:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2013-23-02, Amendment 39-17657 (78 FR 68688,
November 15, 2013) (``AD 2013-23-02''). AD 2013-23-02 applied to all
Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-
235-300, and C-295 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on September 19, 2016 (81 FR 64080). The NPRM was prompted by
a report of an in-flight problem with the fuel transfer system. The
NPRM proposed to continue to require an inspection of the feeder cables
of certain fuel booster pumps for damage (including, but not limited
to, signs of electrical arcing and fuel leaks), and replacement if
necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require modification of the
electrical installation of the fuel booster pumps. We are issuing this
AD to prevent damage to certain fuel booster pumps, which could create
an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, and result in a fuel
tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2016-0014, dated January 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model
CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    An occurrence with a CN-235 aeroplane was reported, involving an
in-flight problem with the fuel transfer system. The results of the
subsequent investigation revealed damage on the fuel booster pump
electrical feeding cable and some burn marks on the pump body and
plate (fairing) at the external side of the fuel tank; confirmed
electrical arcing between the wire and pump body; and revealed fuel
leakage onto the affected wire.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could create an
ignition source in the fuel tank vapour space, possibly resulting in
a fuel tank explosion and loss of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS CASA (Airbus
Military) issued All Operators Letter (AOL) 235-025 and AOL 295-025,
providing inspection instructions for the affected fuel booster
pumps, Part Number (P/N) 1C12-34 and P/N 1C12-46.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0186 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2013-23-02] to require a one-time [detailed visual] inspection of
the affected fuel booster pumps to detect damage and, depending on
findings, replacement of the fuel booster pump. That [EASA] AD also
required reporting of all findings to EADS CASA for evaluation.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus Defence and Space (D&S)
developed [a] modification of the fuel boost pump electrical
installation, available for in-service application through Airbus
D&S Service Bulletin (SB) 235-28-0023. That modification involves
improved protection of the output of affected fuel pump harness
avoiding undesired electrical contacts and preventing potential
arcing between the affected harness and metallic parts of the fuel
boost cover.
    For the reasons described above this [EASA] AD partially retains
the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0186, which is superseded, and
requires modification of the fuel pump electrical installation.

    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-2016-
9109.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    Airbus Defense and Space has issued Service Bulletin SB-235-28-
0023C, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2015. The service information
describes procedures for modification of the fuel booster pumps. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2013-23-02, and retained in this AD take
about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions
that are required by AD 2013-23-02 is $340 per product.
    We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,802 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $86,870, or $2,482 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $16,080, for a cost
of $16,335 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this action.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2013-23-02, Amendment 39-17657 (78 FR 68688, November 15, 2013), and
adding the following new AD:

2016-26-03 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as
Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.): Amendment 39-18761; Docket No.
FAA-2016-9109; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-011-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 8, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-23-02, Amendment 39-17657 (78 FR 68688,
November 15, 2013) (``AD 2013-23-02'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known
as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-
235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight problem with
the fuel transfer system. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage
to certain fuel booster pumps, which could create an ignition source
in the fuel tank vapor space, and result in a fuel tank explosion
and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection of the Feeder Cables of Certain Fuel Booster
Pumps, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2013-23-02, with no changes. Within the times specified in paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Perform a detailed
visual inspection for damage (including, but not limited to, signs
of electrical arcing and fuel leaks) of the electrical feeder cables
of each fuel booster pump having part number (P/N) 1C12-34 or 1C12-
46, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Military All
Operator Letter 235-025, dated July 29, 2013 (for Model CN-235
airplanes); or Airbus Military All Operator Letter 295-025, Revision
01, dated August 1, 2013 (for Model C-295 airplanes).
    (1) For each fuel booster pump that has not been replaced as of
December 2, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-23-02): Prior to the
accumulation of 300 total flight hours or within 5 flight cycles
after December 2, 2013, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For each fuel booster pump that has been replaced as of
December 2, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-23-02): Within 300
flight hours since the most recent fuel booster pump replacement, or
within 5 flight cycles after December 2, 2013, whichever occurs
later.

(h) Retained Replacement of Affected Fuel Boost Pumps, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2013-23-02, with no

changes. If any damage (including, but not limited to, signs of
electrical arcing and fuel leaks) is found during the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Within the time specified in
paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, replace the affected fuel
booster pump with a serviceable pump, in accordance with Airbus
Military All Operator Letter 235-025, dated July 29, 2013 (for Model
CN-235 airplanes); or Airbus Military All Operator Letter 295-025,
Revision 01, dated August 1, 2013 (for Model C-295 airplanes).
    (1) Before further flight.
    (2) Within 10 days following the inspection, provided that the
airplane is operated under the conditions specified in Airbus
Military All Operator Letter 235-025, dated July 29, 2013 (for Model
CN-235 airplanes); or Airbus Military All Operator Letter 295-025,
Revision 01, dated August 1, 2013 (for Model C-295 airplanes).

(i) New Requirement of This AD: Modification of the Fuel Booster Pumps

    For Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-
235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes: Within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, modify the electrical installation of the
fuel booster pumps, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Defense and Space Service Bulletin SB-235-28-
0023C, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2015. Accomplishing the
modification terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this AD for that airplane.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Airbus EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-235-28-
0023, dated March 14, 2014.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, 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 EADS CASA's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0014, dated January 14, 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-2016-9109.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(5) and (m)(6) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
February 8, 2017.
    (i) Airbus Defense and Space Service Bulletin SB-235-28-0023C,
Revision 01, dated October 27, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 2, 2013 (78 FR 68688, November 15, 2013).
    (i) Airbus Military All Operator Letter 235-025, dated July 29,
2013.
    (ii) Airbus Military All Operator Letter 295-025, Revision 01,
dated August 1, 2013.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS
CASA (Airbus Defense and Space), Services/Engineering Support,
Avenida de Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91
585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 31 27; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (6) 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
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 8, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-30842 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11570-11572]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0126; FRL-7690-8]

Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet; Notice of Availability

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the availability of EPA's new lead
hazard information pamphlet for renovation activities, Protect Your
Family from Lead During Renovation, Repair & Painting, for review and
comment. There is an increased risk of lead-based paint poisoning
during renovation activities, particularly to children under 6 years of
age. To better inform families about the risks and to encourage greater
public health and safety during renovation activities in target
housing, EPA has developed a renovation-specific information pamphlet
for families. This new pamphlet gives information on lead-based paint
hazards in a home, lead testing, how to select a contractor, what
precautions to take during the renovation, and proper cleanup
activities. EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the pamphlet's
content and design. After reviewing the comments, EPA will publish a
final version of the pamphlet that may be used to comply with the
requirements of section 406(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA).

DATES:  Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2004-0126, must be received on or before April 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2004-0126, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0126. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2004-0126. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available in the
on-line docket at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
at http://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in the online docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA

Docket Center, EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket
Center Reading Room telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in the EPA
Docket Center, is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For general information contact:
Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance
Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Joshua B. Novikoff, National
Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you perform
renovations in target housing for compensation. Target housing is
defined as any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for
the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child who is less
than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing)
or any 0-bedroom dwelling (40 CFR 745.103). Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Renovators (NAICS 236118), e.g., general building
contractors/operative builders, renovation firms, individual
contractors.
     Special trade contractors, e.g., carpenters (NAICS 38350),
painters (NAICS 238320), drywall workers and lathers (NAICS 238310),
home improvement contractors.
     Landlords (NAICS 561110), e.g., multi-family housing
property management firms and owners.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 745.82. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity, obscene language, or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline.

II. What Action Is the Agency Taking?

A. Development of a New Pamphlet

    EPA has determined that there is a need for a new information
pamphlet that addresses renovation-specific lead exposure concerns.
Existing regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, require each person
who performs a renovation for compensation of target housing (as
defined under 40 CFR 745.103) to provide a lead hazard information
pamphlet to owners and occupants of such housing prior to commencing
the renovation. These regulations implement TSCA section 406(b). The
pamphlet currently used, Protect Your Family from Lead in Your HomeROW
was developed under the Congressional mandate in section 406(a) of
TSCA.
    Renovation activities create an increased risk of lead-based paint
poisoning, particularly to children under 6 years of age, and the
renovation-specific pamphlet will better inform families about such
risks and encourage greater public health and safety during renovation
activities in target housing. This new pamphlet gives information on
lead-based paint hazards in a home, lead testing, how to select a
contractor, what precautions to take during the renovation, and proper
cleanup activities, while still incorporating the information already
included in the original pamphlet and mandated in section 406(a) of
TSCA.
    In addition, EPA plans to modify Protect Your Family from Lead
During Renovation, Repair, & Painting to provide information on new
requirements to minimize the introduction of lead hazards resulting
from the disturbance of lead-based paint during renovation, repair, and
painting activities in most housing built before 1978. EPA proposed
these requirements, Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, in
the Federal Register of January 10, 2006 (71 FR 1588) (FRL-7755-5). The
proposal introduces lead training, certification, and safe work
practice requirements for contractors involved in renovation, repair,
and painting activities. The proposal would also modify the existing
regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, that implement TSCA section
406(b) to require the distribution of this new pamphlet instead of the
current pamphlet, Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home. In the
preamble to the proposal, EPA stated that it would also be publishing
this Federal Register notice to announce the availability of Protect
Your Family from Lead During Renovation, Repair, & Painting for notice
and comment.
    The Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program proposed rule, issued
under the authority of TSCA section 402(c)(3), would require that
renovators are trained in the use of lead safe work practices, that
renovators and firms are certified, that providers of renovation
training are accredited, and that renovators follow renovation work
practice standards. The standards would apply to all persons who do
renovation for compensation, including renovation contractors,
maintenance workers in multi-family housing, painters, and contractors
in other specialty trades.
    The following are examples of work practices described in the
proposal:
     Renovations would be performed by certified firms.
     Certified firms would use certified renovators to perform
certain activities and would provide on-the-job-training for
uncertified workers.
     Firms would post signs clearly defining the work area and
warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation
activities to remain outside of the work area.
     Before beginning the renovation, the firm would isolate
the work area so that no visible dust or debris leaves the work area
while the renovation is being performed.
     Waste from renovation activities would be contained to
prevent releases of dust and debris.
     After the renovation is complete, the firm would clean the
work area. A certified renovator may verify the cleanliness of the work
area using a procedure involving disposable cleaning cloths.
    The proposed rule would apply to housing with lead-based paint
built before 1978. EPA is proposing a two-phased approach, with the
first phase focusing on rental and owner-occupied housing built before
1978 where a child has an increased blood lead level, in rental housing
built before 1960 and in owner-occupied housing built before 1960 where
children under age 6 reside. The second phase would apply to
renovations in rental housing built between 1960 and 1978 and to owner-
occupied housing built after 1960 and before 1978 where children under
age 6 reside.
    You may submit comments on the Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program proposed rule, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0049, online through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments. Other methods for submitting comments are also described in
the proposed rule.

B. Request for Comments

    EPA is seeking public comment on all aspects of the new pamphlet's
design. This includes the tone of the pamphlet, and the extent to which
the current wording and design tend to support (or undermine) its
effectiveness as an educational tool. One issue that EPA has considered
is the need to balance technical accuracy with clarity and freedom from
overly technical jargon. The extent to which the current draft is

clear and understandable is of primary concern to the Agency. In
addition, EPA is particularly interested in how helpful the pamphlet is
compared to the old pamphlet and how appropriately it addresses
renovation-specific issues.
    In designing the layout of the pamphlet, EPA has been aware of the
need to develop a dynamic and engaging document while ensuring that the
pamphlet can be easily and inexpensively reprinted. This approach has
led the Agency to incorporate a layout and illustrations that anchor
many of the pamphlet's key points while providing visual interest. EPA
requests comment on whether the draft images may be altered in any way
to increase their effectiveness.
    In addition to soliciting public input through this notice, EPA
conducted focus tests to obtain feedback on the draft pamphlet's
current reading level, content, and graphic presentation. EPA conducted
these tests during the spring of 2004 in Washington, DC and Arlington,
VA. The tests consisted of written survey questions and moderated group
discussions and were conducted with a group of homeowners and
separately with a group of contractors. The focus tests proved valuable
in providing overall impressions of the draft pamphlet's strengths and
weaknesses. As a direct result of the feedback, EPA made revisions to
clarify the intended audience and goal of the pamphlet and strengthen
the message that renovation and remodeling work can be done safely if
done properly. Revisions included highlighting the significance of lead
dust; clarifying the message about the likelihood of the presence of
lead, the responsibilities of contractors, and testing options; and
better describing what constitutes lead safe work practices.
    After reviewing the comments submitted in response to this notice,
EPA will publish a final version of the pamphlet. The final version may
be used to comply with the requirements of section 406(b) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).

III. References

    Reference 1 is available from the National Lead Information
Clearinghouse (NLIC) at 1-800-424-LEAD or TDD: 1-800-526-5456 or the
EPA Public Information Center at<PHONE_NUMBER> and from the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/lead/leadprot.htm. Both references are available via

http://www.regulations.gov/ and can also be viewed in person at the EPA

Docket Center.
    1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. June 2003.
    2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Protect Your Family from Lead During Renovation, Repair &
Painting draft pamphlet. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC. 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Housing renovation, Lead, Lead-based
paint, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 1, 2006.
Susan B. Hazen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.
[FR Doc. E6-3283 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866
Title of Action:  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting Final Rule
Docket#:
EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274

RIN:
2020-AA47
EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, titled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). OMB received this action on 12 April 2014 and completed their review on 18 November 2014. Whenever EPA makes publicly available a regulatory action that was reviewed under E.O. 12866, section 6(a)(3)(E) of the E.O. directs the Agency to also:
   (1) Make available to the public a copy of the information that was provided to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review under the E.O., i.e., the text of the draft regulatory action and, if applicable, an assessment of the potential costs and benefits, as well as additional information for those actions that are determined to be economically significant under the E.O. (Information requirements are described in sections 6(a)(3)(B) and (C)).
   (2) Identify for the public any substantive changes between the draft submitted to OIRA and the action that was subsequently issued, using a method that is complete, clear, and simple.
   (3) Identify for the public those substantive changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA.
For this regulatory action, were substantive changes made to information reviewed under E.O.
12866? [Please check the appropriate answer.]
   [   ] No.
   [X] Yes.
Accordingly, the Agency has included this form and the following information in the public docket for this regulatory action: [Please check the appropriate information.]

   [   ] A copy of the information that was provided to OIRA for review under the E.O.

   [X] Documentation of any substantive changes made to the draft regulatory text that was submitted to OIRA when compared with what was subsequently made publicly available. The documentation is provided on the pages following this form. Changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, if any, these are clearly identified through attribution to OIRA. EPA has used one or more of the following methods to note changes: [Select the appropriate option(s).]

        [   ] Redline-Strikeout  -  A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using redline/strikeout to show the substantive changes that were made.

        [   ] Hand Markup  -  A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using handwritten notes to show the substantive changes that were made.

        [X] Note to the file - A document that identifies the substantive changes that were made, with section references to the draft regulatory action that was submitted.
If you have any questions about this regulatory action or this documentation, please contact:
Name:
Carey Johnston
Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone:
(202) 566-1014
                                                            Revised: 05/05/2010

Memorandum

From: 	Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
      USEPA/OECA/OC
      ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To:	EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

Date:	23 September 2015

Re: 	Memorandum Documenting Substantive Changes to the Final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Made During E.O. 12866 Review [DCN 0206]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

      Consistent with Section 6(a)(3)(E)(ii) of Executive Order 12866, this memorandum identifies the one substantive change made by EPA to the final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule after EPA submitted this final rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review on 1 July 2015 in response to a substantive comment received during interagency review. This substantive comment was made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and OIRA recommended that EPA incorporate USDA's comment into the preamble to the final rule. OMB concluded their review on 22 September 2015.

     Figure 1: Screenshot of OMB Website (NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule)

In addition to the one substantive comment from USDA (see following section), the following Federal agencies provided comments on the final rule. These comments were general in nature (i.e., no substanative changes made to the final rule in response to these general comments) and these comments strongly supported promulgation of the final rule. These Federal agencies included:

         *          U.S. Department of Interior Geologic Survey (USGS);
         *          U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and
         *          U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Comment

      EPA received many comments from the animal agricultural sector in response to the proposed rule. Although this rule only changes the mode of transmission of NPDES information from paper-based reports to electronic reporting and does not address EPA's practices for managing and sharing that information, EPA received comments regarding privacy, security, management of confidential business information, and EPA's current practice of posting inspection information along with other NPDES information on its public website  [Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)  -  http://echo.epa.gov]. This includes state and EPA inspections of both permitted and unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs along with other types of facilities. In response to comments received on the proposed rule, EPA used the supplemental notice to clarify the effects of this rule on CAFOs (see 1 December 2014; 79 FR 71073).

      EPA also solicited comments in the supplemental notice to the proposed rule on whether it should change its current practice and begin masking facility information for unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs that EPA or state inspectors found were not discharging and do not require an NPDES permit. EPA published an example in the supplemental notice to the proposed rule showing how EPA could mask these data and solicited comments on this approach.

      Comments from the animal agricultural sector were in favor of this proposed approach to mask information while other commenters (for example, environmental advocacy groups) were not. Some authorized NPDES programs also support this as a reasonable approach in balancing the competing interests of privacy and public access to these data. Separate from this rulemaking, in light of concerns raised regarding the privacy interests of an unpermitted CAFO or AFO that an authorized NPDES program or EPA has assessed and found to have not violated the Clean Water Act, EPA noted in the final rule that it will change its current practice and mask on the ECHO public website the related facility-specific facility information.

      USDA made a comment on the timing of when EPA would implement the masking approach. USDA made the following comment to EPA during Executive Order 12866 review of the final rule:

      USDA suggests that this change be made before any new data is placed onto the ECHO website. For data that is already on the ECHO website, but should be masked under this change, USDA suggests that one year is too long. Based on the AFBF comments, USDA suggests that EPA pull those data layers and use "under construction" signals on the public site for that data until the masking process is ready. Since those facilities are not contributing to any violation of the NPDES system, we see no benefit to including those facilities until the privacy aspect can be assured.

      Furthermore, since that data has been available throughout this process to anyone that wants to download the data, there is no longer any compelling need to include the data layer until the EPA can implement this change.  In particular, USDA does not think it is appropriate to place any new data from facilities that do not require a permit and has no violations to the database without the masking in process.

The following are the substantive changes to the final rule preamble that EPA made in response to this comment.

      EPA will implement this data masking in an iterative, two-step process. make this change one year after the effective date of the final rule.  EPA is using a two-step process because unpermitted facilities in EPA's national NPDES data system (Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)-NPDES) cannot currently be identified by CAFO permit component data. As a first step, EPA will use other currently available data in ICIS-NPDES to identify unpermitted CAFOs or AFOs that an authorized NPDES program or EPA have assessed and not found any Clean Water Act violations (see DCN 0207). EPA plans to implement this interim approach by the effective date of this final rule.

      EPA plans to supersede the first approach with a second data masking approach outlined in the Supplemental Notice to the proposed rule (1 December 2014; 79 FR 71080). The second data masking approach will only use CAFO permit component data to identify unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs (see DCN XXX). This second approach will take more time to implement as EPA anticipates it will need a year after the final rule to adopt the above changes to its national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES) and coordinate with authorized NPDES programs. These upgrades to ICIS-NPDES and coordination with authorized NPDES programs are necessary to identify the exact set of unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs that an authorized NPDES program or EPA has assessed and found to have not violated the Clean Water Act. CAFOs and AFOs currently in EPA's data systems that qualify for these facility-specific information redactions and the necessary data management rules for future state and EPA inspections of unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs. EPA anticipates it will need a year after the final rule to adopt this second data masking approach.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7653-7654]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI13-8-000]

Alaska Electric Light and Power Company; Notice of Declaration of
Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To
Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI13-8-000.
    c. Date Filed: June 12, 2013.
    d. Applicant: Alaska Electric Light and Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Sheep Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Sheep Creek Hydroelectric Project will be
located on Sheep Creek, near the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska,
affecting T. 041S, R. 68E, Copper River Median and T. 042S, R. 68E,
Copper River Median.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Scott Willis, Vice President Generation,
Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, 5601 Tonsgard Court, Juneau,
AK

99801; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email address:
Scott.Willis<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Ashish Desai,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the
Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file any motion to intervene, protest, comments, and/or
recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include the
docket number (DI13-8-000). For more information on how to submit these
types of filings, please go to the Commission's Web site located at
http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    Please include the docket number (DI13-8-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The Sheep Creek Hydroelectric Project
will consist of: (1) A 10-foot-high, 75-foot-long concrete diversion
dam at an elevation of 620 feet above mean sea level; (2) an overflow
spillway; (3) a 4,750-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter penstock; (4) a
powerhouse containing a single, 3.3-megawatt generating unit; (5) a
tailrace that would discharge directly into Sheep Creek; (6) a
switchyard, located adjacent to the powerhouse, consisting of a single
3.5-megavolt-ampere transformer to adjust voltage to 23 kilovolts; and
(7) appurtenant facilities.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether
or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2)
would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United
States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a
government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved or would involve any
construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would
increase the project's reservoir, head or generating capacity, or have
otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or
operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for 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. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--All filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
Motion to Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: February 3, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02736 Filed 2-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14160-14163]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05856]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77341; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-94]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Make Permanent
the Pilot Program Eliminating Minimum Value Sizes for Opening
Transactions in New Series of FLEX Options

March 10, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On November 25, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``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 make permanent its pilot program (``Pilot
Program'') eliminating minimum value sizes for requests for quotes
(``RFQs'') for opening transactions in new series of flexible exchange
options (``FLEX Options'' or ``FLEX''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on December 14, 2015.\3\
The Commission received no comments on the proposal. On January 28,
2016, the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed
rule change.\4\ The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change on February 22, 2016, in order to transmit an updated pilot
report that supplements Exhibit 3 to the filing, and to provide
additional information regarding transactions covered by the Pilot
Program and FLEX Option trading on the Exchange.\5\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from
interested persons and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76593 (December 8,
2015), 80 FR 77399 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76989, 81 FR 5811
(February 3, 2016). The Commission designated March 13, 2016, as the
date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
    \5\ The Exchange attached an Exhibit 3 to its proposed rule
change that contains an initial report summarizing pilot data
collected for the period December 1, 2014 through July 31, 2015.
Specifically, the report summarizes the trading volume and
underlying value of opening transactions in new series of FLEX
Options with a size below the minimum value thresholds in force
before the pilot, as well as the types of customers initiating such
transactions. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange submitted an updated
report as an amendment to Exhibit 3 that supplements the original
Exhibit 3 with summary pilot data for the period August 1, 2015
through December 31, 2015 (together with the initial report, ``Pilot
Report''). In addition, in Amendment No. 1 the Exchange compares the
total volume and value of opening transactions in new series of FLEX
Options covered by the Pilot Program during the period December 2014
through December 2015 to the total volume and value of all opening
FLEX Option transactions in new series during the same period.
Further, in Amendment No. 1 the Exchange also compares the
Exchange's FLEX Option trading volume to the Exchange's overall,
combined trading volume for standardized options and FLEX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Amended Proposal

    FLEX Options, unlike traditional standardized options, allow
investors to customize basic option terms, including size, expiration
date, exercise style, and certain exercise prices.\6\ Pursuant to
Commentary .01 to Rule 1079, the Exchange currently has in place a
Pilot Program under which the minimum size requirements set forth in
Rules 1079(a)(8)(A)(i) and (ii), which apply to RFQs for opening
transactions in new series of FLEX Options, are eliminated.\7\ Prior to
the Pilot Program, pursuant to Rules 1079(a)(8)(A)(i) and (ii), the
minimum value size for a RFQ for an

opening transaction in a FLEX series in which there was no open
interest at the time the RFQ was submitted was: (i) For FLEX index
options, $10 million underlying equivalent value with respect to FLEX
market index options and $5 million underlying equivalent value with
respect to FLEX industry index options; and (ii) for FLEX equity
options, the lesser of 250 contracts or the number of contracts
overlying $1 million in the underlying securities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice; see also Phlx Rule (``Rule'') 1079. FLEX equity,
FLEX index, and FLEX currency options are traded on the Exchange,
but the Pilot Program encompasses only FLEX equity and FLEX index
options, and does not encompass FLEX currency options. See Notice;
Commentary .01 to Rule 1079; References to ``FLEX Options'' or
``FLEX'' for purposes of this filing are meant to refer only to FLEX
equity and FLEX index options.
    \7\ See Commentary .01 to Rule 1079; see also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 62900 (September 13, 2010), 75 FR 57098
(September 17, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-123) (establishing Pilot
Program); and 77153 (February 17, 2016) 81 FR 9039 (February 23,
2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-19) (extending Pilot Program until the earlier
of March 15, 2016, or approval of the Pilot Program on a permanent
basis). The term ``request for quotes'' is defined in Rule
1079(a)(11).
    \8\ See Rules 1079(a)(8)(A)(i) and (ii). The term ``underlying
equivalent value'' is defined in Rule 1079(a)(8)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By proposing to make the Pilot Program permanent, the Exchange is
seeking to establish a one-contract minimum size for RFQs for opening
transactions in new series of FLEX Options.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange's proposal would make the Pilot Program permanent by amending
Rules 1079(a)(8)(A)(i) and (ii) to replace the current minimum sizes
specified therein with a one contract minimum size for all FLEX
Options,\10\ and by eliminating the Pilot Program rule text set forth
in Commentary .01 to Rule 1079.\11\ In connection with its proposal to
make the Pilot Program permanent, the Exchange submitted to the
Commission a Pilot Report summarizing Pilot Program data collected for
the period December 2014 through December 2015.\12\ In addition, the
Exchange states that its proposal to make the Pilot Program permanent
and thereby eliminate the minimum size requirements applicable to RFQs
for opening transactions in new FLEX series on the Exchange is similar
to rule changes by NYSE Arca and CBOE adopting similar pilot programs
on a permanent basis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission notes, as originally proposed, that the pilot
program set forth no minimum contract sizes for opening
transactions. In proposing to permanently approve the pilot, the
Exchange is adopting a one contract size minimum, which essentially
is the same as having no minimum contract size.
    \10\ The new one contract minimum size would apply to FLEX
market index options (which are designed to be representative of a
stock market as a whole or a range of companies in unrelated
industries), FLEX industry index options (which are designed to be
representative of a particular industry or a group of related
industries), and FLEX equity options. See Rule 1000A (providing
definitions for market and industry indexes). Because, as noted
above (see supra note 6), the Pilot Program did not encompass FLEX
currency options, such options would continue to have the 50-
contract minimum size requirement set forth in Rule
1079(a)(8)(A)(iii). See Notice.
    \11\ See Notice; see also proposed Rules 1079(a)(8)(A)(i) and
(ii).
    \12\ See supra note 5. Specifically, as noted above, the Pilot
Report contains data and analysis on open interest and trading
volume, and as well as on the types of investors that initiated
opening FLEX Options transactions (i.e., institutional, high net
worth, or retail) in new FLEX Option series. Id. As is also noted
above, Amendment No. 1 contains additional data regarding
transactions covered by the Pilot Program and FLEX Option trading on
the Exchange. Id.
    \13\ See Notice (citing Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
72537 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR 39442 (July 10, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-
25) (order approving NYSE Arca's proposal to make permanent its
pilot program eliminating minimum value sizes for FLEX Options) and
67624 (August 8, 2012), 77 FR 48580 (August 14, 2012) (order
approving CBOE's proposal to make permanent its pilot program
eliminating minimum value sizes for FLEX Options)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\14\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest; and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FLEX Options were originally designed for use by institutional and
high net worth customers, rather than retail investors.\16\ In
approving CBOE's pilot eliminating minimum value sizes for FLEX
Options, which was the first such pilot to be approved on a permanent
basis, the Commission noted that it had received several comment
letters stating that the proposal would assist institutional customers,
but it also noted that the elimination of the minimum value size
requirements raised the possibility that retail customers would access
the FLEX Options market.\17\ One of the risks to retail investors
outlined in the ODD \18\ is that, because of the customized nature of
FLEX Options and lack of continuous quotes, trading in FLEX Options is
often less deep and liquid than trading in standardized options on the
same underlying interest.\19\ Additionally, the Commission notes in the
CBOE Permanent Approval Order that reducing the minimum value size for
opening FLEX Option transactions increases the potential for the FLEX
Options market to act as a surrogate for the standardized options
market, and expressed concern in this regard because the standardized
market contains certain protections for investors not present in the
FLEX Options market.\20\ The Commission stated that, in the event CBOE
proposed making its pilot program permanent, information regarding the
types of customers initiating opening FLEX Option transactions during
the pilot would enable the Commission to evaluate how market
participants have responded to CBOE's pilot program and what types of
customers are using the FLEX Options market.\21\ For these same
reasons, at the Commission's request, the Exchange included in its
Pilot Report information regarding the types of customers that
initiated opening FLEX Option transactions under its Pilot Program.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice; see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
36841 (February 14, 1996), 61 FR 6666 (February 21, 1996) (order
approving SR-PSE-95-24). As noted in the Options Disclosure Document
(``ODD''), which explains the characteristics and risks of exchange-
traded options, flexibly structured options may be useful to
sophisticated investors seeking to manage particular portfolio and
trading risks. Rule 9b-1 under the Act requires that broker-dealers
furnish the ODD to a customer before accepting an order from the
customer to purchase or sell an option contract relating to an
options class that is the subject of the ODD, or approving the
customer's account for the trading of such option. See 17 CFR
240.9b-1(d).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61439 (January 28,
2010), 75 FR 5831 (February 4, 2010) (order approving SR-CBOE-2009-
087) (``CBOE Permanent Approval Order'').
    \18\ See supra note 16.
    \19\ In particular, the ODD states that because many of the
terms of FLEX Options are not standardized, it is less likely that
there will be an active secondary market in which holders and
writers of such options will be able to close out their positions by
offsetting sales and purchases. Also, the ODD states that certain
margin requirements for positions in flexibly structured options may
be significantly greater than the margin requirements applicable to
similar positions in other options on the same underlying interest.
    \20\ See CBOE Permanent Approval Order, supra note 17. In
particular, the Commission noted that continuous quotes may not
always be available in the FLEX Options market and that FLEX Options
do not have trading rotations at either the opening or closing of
trading. Id.
    \21\ Id. The Exchange has submitted a Pilot Report to the
Commission as Exhibit 3 to its filing, as well as other,
confidential reports of data collected during the Pilot Program.
    \22\ See Exhibit 3 to the Exchange's rule filing, as amended by
Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that these considerations and concerns that
informed its analysis of whether to permanently approve CBOE's pilot
are

equally germane to its analysis here. As such, the Commission has
carefully reviewed the Pilot Report data and other information that the
Exchange provided to the Commission as Exhibit 3 to its rule filing, as
amended by Amendment No. 1.\23\ The Pilot Report reflects that, for the
period December 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015, there were 457
opening transactions in new series of FLEX equity options initiated on
the Exchange with small minimum value sizes made possible by the Pilot
Program, 12 of which were initiated by retail customers, 37 of which
were initiated by high net worth customers, and 409 of which were
initiated by institutional customers.\24\ In addition, the Pilot Report
reflects that there were 12 opening transactions in new series of FLEX
index options initiated on the Exchange pursuant to the Pilot Program,
none of which were initiated by retail customers, 5 of which were
initiated by high net worth customers, and 7 of which were initiated by
institutional customers.\25\ Overall, only a limited number of retail
customers, as defined by the Exchange, appear to have availed
themselves of the pilot and entered into opening transactions in new
series of FLEX Options with small minimum value sizes. Moreover, the
Exchange has stated that, during the period December 2014 through
December 2015, the 457 opening transactions in new series of FLEX
equity options covered by the Pilot Program accounted for approximately
6.3% of the total volume and approximately 3.7% of the total value of
all opening FLEX equity options transactions in new series--i.e.,
opening transactions covered by the Pilot Program as well as opening
transactions with value sizes above the pre-pilot minimum.\26\ The
Exchange has also stated that, during the period December 2014 through
December 2015, the 12 opening transactions in new series of FLEX index
options covered by the Pilot Program accounted for approximately 8.8%
of the total volume and approximately 4.1% of the total value of all
opening FLEX index option transactions in new series.\27\ Furthermore,
it is the Commission's understanding that FLEX Option trading on the
Exchange accounts for less than 1.37% of the Exchange's combined
trading volume for standardized and FLEX options.\28\ Notably, the
Exchange represents that it has not experienced any adverse market
effects with respect to the Pilot Program.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id. The Exchange categorized a trade as initiated by a
retail customer if the option premium was less than $5,000, as
initiated by a high net worth customer if the option premium was
between $5,000 and $49,000, and as initiated by an institutional
customer if the option premium was greater than $50,000. Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id. The Exchange notes that the Pilot Report covers only
RFQs for opening transactions in new series of FLEX Options, as per
the Pilot Program. The Pilot Report does not cover RFQs for
transactions in currently-opened FLEX Option series or responsive
quotes for FLEX Options pursuant to Rules 1079(a)(8)(B) or (C),
respectively, as transactions in currently-opened FLEX Option series
and responsive quotes were not part of the Pilot Program. See
Notice.
    \28\ See Exhibit 3 to the Exchange's rule filing, as amended by
Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On balance, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the
Act to make the Pilot Program permanent and thus eliminate, on a
permanent basis, the minimum value size requirements currently set
forth in Rules 1079(a)(8)(A)(i) and (ii) for RFQs for opening
transactions in new series of FLEX Options. The protections noted
below, including heightened options suitability requirements, should
help to address any concerns about the potential for retail
participation in the Exchange's FLEX Options market in the future.
Moreover, the Commission is not aware of any data or analysis to date
suggesting that the trading of FLEX Options has acted as a surrogate
for the trading of standardized options on the Exchange as a result of
the Pilot Program. Indeed, as is stated above, the Commission
understands that FLEX Option trading on the Exchange accounts for less
than 1.37% of the Exchange's combined trading volume for standardized
and FLEX options.\30\ In addition, the Exchange has indicated that
Pilot Program FLEX Option trades account for a very small proportion of
the total volume and total value of all FLEX Option trades.\31\ Thus,
it appears that the Pilot Program has not caused significant trading
interest to migrate from the Exchange's standardized options market to
its FLEX Options market, nor caused, to the best of our knowledge, a
large number of investors to use FLEX Options to avoid certain
requirements in the standardized market. Based on the current data and
size of the FLEX Options market, and the lack of any evidence to the
contrary, it would appear that investors are using the FLEX Options
market for its intended purpose--to be able to customize certain terms
not available in the standardized options market. Further, the
Commission notes that it is not aware of any problems resulting from
the permanent approval of NYSE Arca's and CBOE's similar pilots
eliminating FLEX Option minimum value sizes. As a result, the
Commission believes that it is appropriate under the Act, and would
promote just and equitable principles of trade, as well as remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, to permanently eliminate the current minimum
value size requirements for RFQs for opening transactions in new series
of FLEX Options and replace them with a one-contract minimum size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Existing safeguards--such as position reporting requirements and
margin requirements--will continue to apply to FLEX Options.\32\
Further, as noted above, under Rule 9b-1 under the Act,\33\ all
customers of a broker-dealer with options accounts approved to trade
FLEX Options must receive the ODD, which contains specific disclosures
about the characteristics and special risks of trading FLEX
Options.\34\ In addition, similar to other options, FLEX Options are
subject to Trading Permit Holder supervision and suitability
requirements, such as in Rules 1025 and 1026, respectively.\35\ In
addition to ensuring that FLEX Options are suitable for their
customers, broker-dealers also must take into account the
characteristics of the FLEX market, as compared to the standardized
market, when satisfying their best execution obligations. The
Commission believes that the safeguards in place are reasonably
designed to help mitigate potential risks for retail investors and
other market participants investing in FLEX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Certain position limit, aggregation and exercise limit
requirements continue to apply to FLEX Options in accordance with
Rule 1079(d) (Position Limits) and Rule 1079(e) (Exercise Limits).
But the Commission notes that certain FLEX Options do not have
position or exercise limits.
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
    \34\ See supra notes 16 and 19.
    \35\ See Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that permanently removing the minimum value
size requirements for RFQs for opening transactions in new series of
FLEX Options and replacing them with a one-contract minimum size will
give investors a more viable, exchange-traded alternative to customized
options in the OTC market, which are not subject to minimum value size
requirements.\36\ Furthermore, the Exchange has represented that
broker-dealers have indicated to the Exchange that the minimum value
size requirements have prevented them from bringing transactions on the
Exchange that are already taking place in the OTC

market.\37\ Therefore, it appears possible that eliminating the minimum
value sizes for RFQs for opening transactions in new series of FLEX
Options could further incent trading interest in customized options to
move from the OTC market to the Exchange. To the extent investors
choose to trade FLEX Options on the Exchange in lieu of the OTC market
as a result of the permanent removal of the minimum value size
requirements, such action should benefit investors. As the Commission
has previously noted, there are certain benefits to trading on an
exchange, such as enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out
positions, increased market transparency, and heightened contra-party
creditworthiness due to the role of the Options Clearing Corporation as
issuer and guarantor of FLEX Options.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57429 (March 4,
2008), 73 FR 13058 (March 11, 2008) (order approving SR-CBOE-2006-
36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-94 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-94. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-94 and should be
submitted on or before April 6, 2016.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange submitted additional Pilot Program
data to supplement Exhibit 3 to the Exchange's rule filing, which
initially contained a report of Pilot Program data for the period
December 2014 through July 2015. Amendment No. 1 contains an updated
pilot report that provides data regarding FLEX Option transactions
under the Pilot Program for the period August 2015 through December
2015, as well as additional information regarding transactions covered
by the Pilot Program and FLEX Option trading on the Exchange.\39\ The
Commission believes that the supplemental Pilot Program data set forth
in Amendment No. 1 further supports approval of the Pilot Program
because, collectively with the Pilot Program data initially submitted
as Exhibit 3 to the rule filing, the data reflects that there is
minimal usage of FLEX Options by retail customers on the Exchange, and
that market participants appear to be utilizing FLEX Options for their
intended purpose--i.e., customization of certain terms not available in
the standardized options market--and not as a surrogate for
standardized option trading. Accordingly, the Commission finds good
cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\40\ for approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the
thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Exhibit 3 to the Exchange's rule filing, as amended by
Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    In summary, the Commission believes, for the reasons noted above,
that the proposed rule change to permanently approve the Pilot Program,
thereby permanently implementing a one-contract minimum size
requirement in place of the pre-existing minimum size requirements for
RFQs for opening transactions in new series of FLEX Options on the
Exchange, is consistent with the Act and Section 6(b)(5) thereunder in
particular, and should be approved, as amended. The Exchange has
committed, and the Commission expects the Exchange, to continue to
monitor the usage of FLEX Options, whether changes need to be made to
its rules or the ODD to address any changes in retail FLEX Option
participation, and for any other issues that may occur as a result of
the elimination of the minimum value sizes on a permanent basis,
including whether FLEX Option trades are being used as a surrogate for
trading options in the standardized market.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Notice (Exchange representing that it will continue to
monitor the usage of FLEX Options and whether any changes to its
rules or the ODD are necessary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\42\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2015-94) be, and it
hereby is, approved, on an accelerated basis, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05856 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 29141]
[DOCID:fr19my06-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP98-18-021]

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of Compliance
Filing

May 15, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 11, 2006, Iroquois Gas Transmission System,
L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
First Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 7, to
be effective on April 1, 2006, in compliance with the Commission's
order issued on April 26, 2006.
    Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all
jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies and
all parties to the proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7709 Filed 5-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P