[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21425-21426]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3273-024]

Chittenden Falls Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Settlement
Agreement, Soliciting Comments, and Modification of Procedural Schedule

    Take notice that the following settlement agreement has been filed
with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Settlement Agreement.
    b. Project No.: 3273-024.
    c. Date filed: April 10, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Chittenden Falls Hydropower, Inc. (Chittenden Falls
Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Chittenden Falls Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: On Kinderhook Creek, near the Town of Stockport,
Columbia County, New York. The project does not occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.602.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mark Boumansour, Chief Operating Officer,
Gravity Renewables, Inc., 1401 Walnut Street, Suite 420, Boulder, CO
80302;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>and/or Celeste N.
Fay, Regulatory Manager, Gravity Renewables, Inc., 5 Dartmouth Drive,
Suite 104, Auburn, NH 03032;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments: Comments on the Settlement
Agreement, and comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions in response to the Commission's February 21, 2020 Notice
of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis (REA Notice) are due on
Monday, May 4, 2020. Reply comments are due on Wednesday, June 17,
2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments 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).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. Chittenden Falls Hydro filed an Offer of Settlement (Settlement
Agreement) on behalf of itself, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (New York DEC), and the United States
Department of the Interior--Fish and Wildlife Service. The Settlement
Agreement includes protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures
addressing run-of-river operation and allowable impoundment
fluctuations, a minimum bypassed reach flow, fish passage and
protection for American eel, and by reference, management plans for
northern long-eared bat and bald eagles (Appendix A), and invasive
species (Appendix B). Chittenden Falls Hydro requests that the measures
in the Settlement Agreement be incorporated as license conditions in
any new license issued for the project. The signatories to the
Settlement Agreement also request a 40-year license term for the
project.
    l. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available for review on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    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, contact FERC
Online Support.
    m. Procedural Schedule: The Commission's February 21, 2020 REA
Notice established April 21, 2020 as the deadline for filing comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions regarding
Chittenden Falls Hydro's license application. In order to allow
adequate time for stakeholder comments regarding the license
application and the Settlement Agreement, we have modified the comment
period to allow

stakeholders to submit comments on the Settlement Agreement and
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
regarding the license application on the same date, and allow
Chittenden Falls Hydro sufficient time to submit reply comments. The
application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro
Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of comments, recommendations,     May 4, 2020.
 terms and conditions, and
 prescriptions (per the REA Notice) and
 comments on the Settlement Agreement.
Reply comments due.....................  June 17, 2020.
Commission Issues EA...................  October 2020.
Comments on EA.........................  November 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 13, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08185 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28239-28244]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11946]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

RIN 3038-AE24

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74936; File No. S7-16-11]
RIN 3235-AK65

Forward Contracts With Embedded Volumetric Optionality

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Securities and Exchange
Commission.

ACTION: Final interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 712(d)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street

Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act''), the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the ``CFTC'') and the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``SEC''), after consultation with the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Board of Governors''), are
jointly issuing the CFTC's clarification of its interpretation
concerning forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality.

DATES: This interpretation is effective on May 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CFTC: Elise Pallais, Counsel, (202)
418-5577<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mark Fajfar, Assistant General Counsel,
(202) 418-6636<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of the General Counsel,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington,
DC 20581. SEC: Carol McGee, Assistant Director,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of Derivatives Policy, Division of Trading and
Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    In Further Definition of ``Swap,'' Security-Based Swap,'' and
``Security-Based Swap Agreement''; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap
Agreement Recordkeeping (the ``Products Release''), the CFTC provided
an interpretation, in response to requests from commenters, with
respect to forward contracts that provide for variations in delivery
amount (i.e., that contain ``embedded volumetric optionality'').\1\
Specifically, the CFTC identified when an agreement, contract, or
transaction would fall within the forward contract exclusion from the
``swap'' and ``future delivery'' definitions in the Commodity Exchange
Act (the ``CEA'') \2\ notwithstanding that it contains embedded
volumetric optionality.\3\ In providing its interpretation, the CFTC
was guided by and sought to reconcile agency precedent regarding
forward contracts containing embedded options \4\ with the statutory
definition of ``swap'' in section 1a(47) of the CEA, which provides,
among other things, that commodity options are swaps, even if
physically settled.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 77 FR 48207, 48238-42 (Aug. 13, 2012). As described in
the Products Release, the interpretation included the following
seven elements:
    1. The embedded optionality does not undermine the overall
nature of the agreement, contract, or transaction as a forward
contract;
    2. The predominant feature of the agreement, contract, or
transaction is actual delivery;
    3. The embedded optionality cannot be severed and marketed
separately from the overall agreement, contract, or transaction in
which it is embedded;
    4. The seller of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the
agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric
optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement,
contract, or transaction to deliver the underlying nonfinancial
commodity if the optionality is exercised;
    5. The buyer of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the
agreement, contract or transaction with embedded volumetric
optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement,
contract, or transaction, to take delivery of the underlying
nonfinancial commodity if it exercises the embedded volumetric
optionality;
    6. Both parties are commercial parties; and
    7. The exercise or non-exercise of the embedded volumetric
optionality is based primarily on physical factors, or regulatory
requirements, that are outside the control of the parties and are
influencing demand for, or supply of, the nonfinancial commodity.
    \2\ See 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(ii) (excluding from the definition of
``swap'' ``any sale of a nonfinancial commodity or security for
deferred shipment or delivery, so long as the transaction is
intended to be physically settled''); 1a(27) (excluding from the
definition of ``future delivery'' ``any sale of any cash commodity
for deferred shipment or delivery'') (emphasis added).
    \3\ See 77 FR at 48238-42 & n.335. As explained in the Products
Release, the CFTC interprets the exclusions in CEA sections
1a(47)(B)(ii) and 1a(27) as coextensive and thus requiring a
consistent interpretation. See id. at 48227-8. See also id. at
48227-36 (discussing the CFTC's interpretation regarding the forward
contract exclusion for nonfinancial commodities).
    \4\ See id. at 48237-39 (citing In re Wright, CFTC Docket No.
97-02, 2010 WL 4388247 (CFTC Oct. 25, 2010), and Characteristics
Distinguishing Cash and Forward Contracts and ``Trade'' Options, 50
FR 39656 (Sept. 30, 1985) (``1985 CFTC OGC Interpretation'')).
    \5\ See id. at 48236-37; 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(A)(i) (defining
``swap'' to include ``[an] option of any kind that is for the
purchase or sale, or based on the value, of 1 or more * * *
commodities * * *''). CEA section 1a(47)(A)(i) does not
differentiate between financially- and physically-settled options.
Certain physically-settled options, termed ``trade options,'' are
nevertheless exempt from most requirements applicable to swaps. See
17 CFR 32.3. Additionally, the CFTC is proposing to amend its trade
option exemption to further reduce the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements applicable to certain commercial end users. See Trade
Options, 80 FR 26200 (May 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to requests from market participants,\6\ the CFTC
proposed in November 2014 to clarify its interpretation of when an
agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric
optionality would be considered a forward contract.\7\ In particular,
the CFTC proposed to (a) modify the fourth and fifth elements of its
interpretation to clarify that the interpretation applies to embedded
volumetric optionality in the form of both puts and calls \8\ and (b)
modify the seventh element to clarify that the embedded volumetric
optionality must be primarily intended, at the time the parties enter
into the agreement, contract, or transaction, to address physical
factors or regulatory requirements that reasonably influence demand
for, or supply of, the nonfinancial commodity.\9\ The CFTC requested
comment on all aspects of its proposal.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Products Release included a request for comment on the
CFTC's interpretation regarding forward contracts with embedded
volumetric optionality. See 77 FR at 48241-42. CFTC staff also
solicited comments in connection with a public roundtable on issues
concerning end users and the Dodd-Frank Act. These comments are
available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1256 and http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1485, respectively. In general,
commenters asserted that uncertainty with regard to the CFTC's
interpretation, particularly the seventh element, has led to
confusion over whether to characterize certain transactions as
excluded forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality or
regulated trade options.
    \7\ Forward Contracts With Embedded Volumetric Optionality, 79
FR 69073 (Nov. 20, 2014) (the ``Proposed Interpretation''). Section
712(d)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that ``[a]ny interpretation
of, or guidance by either Commission regarding, a provision of this
title, shall be effective only if issued jointly by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange
Commission, after consultation with the Board of Governors, if this
title requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the
Securities and Exchange Commission to issue joint regulations to
implement the provision.'' While the Dodd-Frank Act requires this
interpretation, which was originally included in the Products
Release, to be issued jointly by the CFTC and the SEC, it is an
interpretation solely of the CFTC and does not apply to the
exclusion from the swap and security-based swap definitions for
security forwards or to the distinction between security forwards
and security futures products.
    \8\ Id. at 69074.
    \9\ Id. at 69074-76.
    \10\ See id. at 69076. The CFTC also requested comment in
response to specific questions relating to its proposal. Id. The
comment file, which includes 22 unique comments and one (1) ex parte
communication, is available at http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1541. Commenters include American
Gas Association; American Petroleum Institute; American Public Power
Association, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply
Association, Large Public Power Council, and National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association; Americans for Financial Reform; Barnard,
Chris; Better Markets Inc.; Business Council for Sustainable Energy;
Coalition for Derivatives End-Users; Coalition of Physical Energy
Companies; Cogen Technologies Linden Venture LP; Commercial Energy
Working Group and Commodity Markets Council; Dairy Farmers of
America; EDF Trading North America LLC; Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission staff; Fig, Willem; International Energy Credit
Association; International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc.;
National Association of Manufacturers; National Corn Growers
Association and Natural Gas Supply Association; National Energy
Marketers Association; Public Citizen; and Southern Company Services
Inc., acting on behalf of and as agent for Alabama Power Co.,
Georgia Power Co., Gulf Power Co., Mississippi Power Co., and
Southern Power Co. None of the commenters requested any revisions to
SEC rules or regulations (or interpretations thereof), but rather
addressed issues relating solely to the CFTC's interpretation.

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

II. Overview

    After a careful review of the comments received, the CFTC has
determined to finalize its interpretation as proposed with some
additional clarifications. Accordingly, an agreement, contract, or
transaction falls within the forward exclusion from the swap and future
delivery definitions, notwithstanding that it contains embedded
volumetric optionality, when:
    1. The embedded optionality does not undermine the overall nature
of the agreement, contract, or transaction as a forward contract;
    2. The predominant feature of the agreement, contract, or
transaction is actual delivery;
    3. The embedded optionality cannot be severed and marketed
separately from the overall agreement, contract, or transaction in
which it is embedded;
    4. The seller of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the agreement,
contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality intends,
at the time it enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction to
deliver the underlying nonfinancial commodity if the embedded
volumetric optionality is exercised;
    5. The buyer of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the agreement,
contract or transaction with embedded volumetric optionality intends,
at the time it enters into the agreement, contract, or transaction, to
take delivery of the underlying nonfinancial commodity if the embedded
volumetric optionality is exercised;
    6. Both parties are commercial parties; and
    7. The embedded volumetric optionality is primarily intended, at
the time that the parties enter into the agreement, contract, or
transaction, to address physical factors or regulatory requirements
that reasonably influence demand for, or supply of, the nonfinancial
commodity.
    As stated in the Proposed Interpretation, the first six elements of
this interpretation are largely unchanged from the Products
Release.\11\ Among them, only the fourth and fifth elements have been
modified, as proposed, to clarify that the CFTC's interpretation
applies to embedded volumetric optionality in the form of both puts and
calls.\12\ Accordingly, the CFTC's discussion of these six elements in
the Products Release remains relevant and applicable.\13\ The seventh
element of the interpretation is discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 77 FR at 48238.
    \12\ As described in the Products Release, the fifth element did
not appear to contemplate circumstances where the seller of the
nonfinancial commodity might exercise the embedded volumetric
optionality. See 77 FR at 48238 (``The buyer of a nonfinancial
commodity underlying the agreement, contract or transaction with
embedded volumetric optionality intends, at the time it enters into
the agreement, contract, or transaction, to take delivery of the
underlying nonfinancial commodity if it exercises the embedded
volumetric optionality.'') (emphasis added).
    \13\ See 77 FR at 48238-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general matter, the CFTC clarifies that its interpretation
with respect to forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality
should not be read to alter or expand the historic interpretation of
the forward contract exclusion. As the first two elements affirm, the
interpretation presupposes the existence of an underlying forward
contract, as determined by applying the historic interpretation of the
forward contract exclusion.\14\ The CFTC's interpretation, as provided
herein, merely identifies the circumstances under which volumetric
optionality embedded in such a forward contract would not operate to
take the contract outside the forward contract exclusion.\15\ As
explained in the Products Release, the historic interpretation of the
forward contract exclusion remains relevant and applicable.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 48227-36.
    \15\ The CFTC's interpretation only addresses when a forward
contract with embedded volumetric optionality would be excluded from
the swap or future delivery definitions in the CEA; it does not
address whether a contract would otherwise fall within the swap
definition. In other words, a contract that does not meet one or
more elements of the CFTC's interpretation may or may not be a swap
depending on the characteristics of the contract. See, e.g., id. at
48246-52 (discussing application of the swap definition to consumer
and commercial agreements).
    \16\ See, e.g., id. at 48228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to commenters, the CFTC clarifies that the fourth and
fifth elements of the interpretation do not preclude bandwidth (a.k.a.
``swing'') contracts, which provide for delivery of a nonfinancial
commodity within a certain minimum and maximum range, from falling
within the forward contract exclusion from the swap and future delivery
definitions.\17\ As indicated in the Products Release, the fourth and
fifth elements merely require that the intent to make or take delivery
(as applicable) required of the underlying forward contract extends to
the embedded volumetric optionality, such that both parties to the
contract intend to make or take delivery (as applicable) of the
nonfinancial commodity under the contract if the embedded volumetric
optionality is exercised.\18\ The embedded volumetric optionality may
therefore operate to increase and/or decrease the quantity delivered
under the underlying forward contract and still not take the contract
out of the forward exclusion provided that all elements of the CFTC's
interpretation, as provided herein, are satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Letter from Coalition of Physical Energy Companies
(Dec. 22, 2014) at 4; Letter from Commercial Energy Working Group
and Commodity Markets Council (Dec. 22, 2014) at 3-4; Letter from
EDF Trading North America LLC (``EDFTNA'') (Dec. 22, 2014) at 15-17;
Letter from International Energy Credit Association (``IECA'') (Dec.
22, 2014) at 4-5; Letter from International Swaps and Derivatives
Association Inc. (Dec. 22, 2014) at 3 (each requesting clarification
that the fourth and fifth elements permit both increases and
decreases in volume).
    \18\ See 77 FR at 48239 (``The fourth and fifth elements are
designed to ensure that both parties intend to make or take delivery
(as applicable), subject to the relevant physical factors or
regulatory requirements, which may lead the parties to deliver more
or less than originally intended.'') (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The Seventh Element

    As stated in the Proposed Interpretation, the seventh element
addresses the primary reason for including embedded volumetric
optionality in a forward contract.\19\ Embedded volumetric optionality
offers commercial parties the flexibility to vary the amount of the
nonfinancial commodity delivered during the life of the contract in
response to uncertainty in the demand for or supply of the nonfinancial
commodity.\20\ The seventh element ensures that this purpose,
consistent with the historical interpretation of a forward
contract,\21\ is the primary purpose for including embedded volumetric
optionality in the contract. In other words, the embedded volumetric
optionality must primarily be intended as a means of assuring a supply
source or providing delivery flexibility in the face of uncertainty
regarding the quantity of the nonfinancial commodity that may be needed
or produced in the future, consistent with the purposes of a forward
contract.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 79 FR at 69074-75.
    \20\ See, e.g., Letter from the Commodity Markets Council, the
National Corn Growers Association, and the Natural Gas Supply
Association (``CMC/NCGA/NGA'') (April 17, 2014) at 2 (``Physical
end-users need these contracts to address supply input or production
output uncertainty associated with the operation of a physical
business.''); Letter from the Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.
(April 17, 2014) at 2 (``Such contracts provide us with the ability
to allow our customers flexibility to increase or decrease the
amount of purchase or sale of a commodity in response to prevailing
market conditions.'').
    \21\ See 77 FR 48228 (describing a forward contract as a
``commercial merchandising transaction'' in which delivery is
delayed for ``commercial convenience or necessity'').
    \22\ See 77 FR at 48228 (``The primary purpose of a forward
contract is to transfer ownership of the commodity and not to
transfer solely its price risk.''). See also Letter from the CMC/
NCGA/NGA (April 17, 2014) at 2 (``[Contracts with volumetric
optionality] exist to permit end-users to have agreements in place
so that they can effectively and economically manage the purchase or
sale of commodities related to their commercial businesses, not as a
substitute for a financially settled contract or for speculative
purposes.''); Letter from ONEOK, Inc. (July 22, 2011) at 7 (stating
that ``[a]lthough the amounts that can be taken on delivery may
vary, the primary intent of the contracts is not to provide price
protection'').

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

    As indicated in the Proposed Interpretation, the focus of the
seventh element is the intent of the party with the right to exercise
the embedded volumetric optionality at the time of contract
initiation.\23\ In line with the CFTC's historical interpretation of
the forward contract exclusion, as discussed in the Products Release,
such intent may be ascertained by the relevant facts and circumstances
surrounding the contract, including the parties' course of performance
thereunder.\24\ Nevertheless, commercial parties may rely on
counterparty representations with respect to the intended purpose for
embedding volumetric optionality in the contract provided they do not
have information that would cause a reasonable person to question the
accuracy of the representation. In response to commenters, the CFTC
clarifies that commercial parties are not required to conduct due
diligence in order to rely on such representations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For example, in choosing whether to obtain additional
supply by exercising the embedded volumetric optionality under a
given contract or turning to another supply source--whether storage,
the spot market, or another forward contract with embedded
volumetric optionality--commercial parties would be able to consider
a variety of factors, including price, provided that the intended
purpose for including the embedded volumetric optionality in the
contract at contract initiation was to address physical factors or
regulatory requirements influencing the demand for or supply of the
commodity. See also Letter from EDFTNA (Dec. 22, 2014) at 20
(requesting further clarification that the seventh element only
addresses the intent of the party with the right to exercise the
embedded volumetric optionality.)
    \24\ See 77 FR 48228 (``In assessing the parties' expectations
or intent regarding delivery, the CFTC consistently has applied a
`facts and circumstances' test.''). For example, if one party has an
option to settle a contract financially based upon a value change in
an underlying cash market, then the contract may be a swap. See id.
at 48241 n. 370. See also Letter from ONEOK, Inc. (July 22, 2011) at
6 (acknowledging that ``[t]he intent of the parties to defer
delivery of a varying amount can be ascertained based on objective
criteria, such as the pattern of deliveries in relation to variation
in weather, customer demand, or other similar factors.'').
    \25\ See Letter from EDFTNA (Dec. 22, 2014) at 22-23 (arguing
that requiring counterparties to conduct due diligence in order to
ensure that facts suggesting an alternate purpose for the embedded
volumetric optionality are not present would be ``infeasible'' and
may undercut the utility of the Proposed Interpretation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFTC clarifies that the seventh element's reference to
``physical factors'' should be construed broadly to include any fact or
circumstance that could reasonably influence supply of or demand for
the nonfinancial commodity under the contract. Such facts and
circumstances could include not only environmental factors, such as
weather or location, but relevant ``operational considerations'' (e.g.,
the availability of reliable transportation or technology) and broader
social forces, such as changes in demographics or geopolitics.\26\ The
CFTC further clarifies that the parties' having some influence over
such physical factors (e.g., the scheduling of plant maintenance, plans
for business expansion) would not be inconsistent with the seventh
element, provided that the embedded volumetric optionality is included
in the contract at initiation primarily to address potential
variability in a party's supply of or demand for the nonfinancial
commodity, consistent with the purposes of a forward contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As stated in the Products Release, system reliability
issues that lead to voluntary supply curtailments would be
considered ``physical factors'' within the scope of the seventh
element. See 77 FR at 48239 n.345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFTC reiterates, however, that if the embedded volumetric
optionality is primarily intended, at contract initiation, to address
concerns about price risk (e.g., to protect against increases or
decreases in the cash market price), the seventh element would not be
satisfied absent an applicable regulatory requirement, including
guidance, whether formal or informal, received from a public utility
commission or other similar governing body, to obtain or provide the
lowest price (e.g., the buyer is an energy company regulated on a cost-
of-service basis).\27\ The CFTC recognizes that, as commenters have
pointed out, price is likely to be a consideration when entering into
any contract, including a forward contract.\28\ However, to ensure
that, as required by the first element, the overall nature of the
contract as a forward is not undermined,\29\ the embedded volumetric
optionality must, as stated above, be primarily intended as a means of
securing a supply source in the face of uncertainty (arising from
physical factors or regulatory requirements, such as an obligation to
ensure system reliability) regarding the volume of the nonfinancial
commodity to be needed or produced.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The CFTC confirms that, as stated in the Proposed
Interpretation and in the Products Release, the deliverable
quantities allowable under embedded volumetric optionality may be
justified by a combination of regulatory requirements and physical
factors, such that the quantity provided for by the embedded
volumetric optionality may reasonably exceed quantities required by
regulation. See 77 FR at 48238 n.340.
    \28\ See 77 FR at 48228 (``The primary purpose of a forward
contract is to transfer ownership of the commodity and not to
transfer solely its price risk.'') (emphasis added). See also Letter
from American Gas Association (``AGA'') (Dec. 22, 2014) at 8-10;
Letter from Coalition for Derivatives End-Users (Dec. 22, 2014) at
6; Letter from American Public Power Association, Edison Electric
Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public Power
Council, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(``Joint Associations'') (Dec. 22, 2014) at 4-5; Letter from
Southern Company Services Inc., acting on behalf of and as agent for
Alabama Power Co., Georgia Power Co., Gulf Power Co., Mississippi
Power Co., and Southern Power Co. (Dec. 22, 2014) at 2-3.
    \29\ See 77 FR at 48227-36.
    \30\ See 1985 CFTC OGC Interpretation, 50 FR at 39658. But see
supra note 23; Letter from National Corn Growers Association and
Natural Gas Supply Association (Dec. 22, 2014) (recognizing that
price concerns are acceptable ``if they arise subsequent to
execution or are motivated by an applicable regulatory
requirement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as stated in the Proposed Interpretation, the CFTC
understands that in certain retail electric market demand-response
programs, electric utilities have the right to interrupt or curtail
service to a customer to support system reliability.\31\ The CFTC
clarifies that, given that a key function of an electricity system
operator is to ensure grid reliability, demand response agreements,
even if not specifically mandated by a system operator, may be properly
characterized as the product of regulatory requirements within the
meaning of the seventh element.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Letter from the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, the American Public Power Association, the Large Public
Power Association, and the Transmission Access Policy Study Group
(Oct. 12, 2012) at 9.
    \32\ The CFTC further clarifies that its interpretations
regarding full requirements and output contracts, as provided in the
Products Release, remain relevant and unaffected by the discussion
herein. See 77 FR at 48239-40. Similarly, the CFTC reiterates that,
depending on the relevant facts and circumstances, capacity
contracts, transmission (or transportation) service agreements,
tolling agreements, and peaking supply contracts, as discussed in
the Products Release, may qualify as forward contracts with embedded
volumetric optionality provided they meet the elements of the CFTC's
proposed interpretation. See 77 FR 48240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in response to requests from commenters, the CFTC
clarifies that commercial parties may choose to either rely on their
good faith characterization of an existing contract (e.g., as an
excluded forward contract with embedded volumetric optionality or an
exempt trade option) and or recharacterize it in accordance with this
final interpretation.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Letter from AGA (Dec. 22, 2104) at 12, 19 (requesting
relief for market participants who reported transactions as trade
options that, following adoption of the Proposed Interpretation,
they would consider excluded forwards); Letter from EDFTNA (Dec. 22,
2014) at 5-7 (arguing that reassessment of the legal character of an
existing contract is impractical) Letter from IECA (Dec. 22, 2014)
at 3 (arguing that requiring parties to reclassify their existing
contracts following adoption of the Proposed Interpretation would be
unduly burdensome); Letter from Joint Associations (Dec. 22, 2014)
at 11 (requesting that the CFTC allow counterparties to reclassify
their transactions following adoption of the Proposed
Interpretation).

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

    The CFTC believes that these modifications are appropriately
measured to clarify the meaning of certain language in the seventh
element and should not be construed as a shift in the CFTC's
longstanding precedent on the difference between forward contracts and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
options.

    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     Dated: May 12, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2015, by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Appendices to Forward
Contracts With Embedded Volumetric Optionality--Commission Voting
Summary, Chairman's Statement, and Commissioner's Statement

Appendix 1--Commodity Futures Trading Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Wetjen, Bowen,
and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the
negative.

Appendix 2--Statement of Support of CFTC Chairman Timothy G. Massad

    I support the staff's recommendations to finalize a proposal we
made in November regarding contracts with embedded volumetric
optionality--a contractual right to receive more or less of a
commodity at the negotiated contract price.
    As I said in my statement on the proposal, with reforms as
significant as these, it is inevitable that there will be a need for
some minor adjustments. And that is what we are doing. The changes
we are proposing today help ensure that as we regulate the potential
for excessive risks in these markets, we make sure that the
commercial businesses--whether they are farmers, ranchers,
manufacturers or others--that rely on these markets to hedge routine
risks can continue to do so efficiently and effectively.
    Specifically, we proposed to clarify when a contract with
embedded volumetric optionality will be excluded from being
considered a swap. We received a number of comments on this and we
have incorporated some of the concerns in the final clarification.
Today, following action by the SEC last week, we are posting to the
Federal Register the final interpretation. By clarifying how these
agreements will be treated for regulatory purposes, the
interpretation should make it easier for commercial companies to
continue to use these types of contracts in their daily operations.
    In certain situations, commercial parties are unable to predict
at the time a contract is entered into the exact quantities of the
commodity that they may need or be able to supply, and the embedded
volumetric optionality offers them the flexibility to vary the
quantities delivered accordingly. The CFTC put out an
interpretation, consisting of seven factors, to provide clarity as
to when such contracts would fall within the forward contract
exclusion from the swap definition, but some market participants
have felt this interpretation, in particular the seventh factor, was
hard to apply. In some cases, the two parties would reach different
conclusions about the same contract.
    Today we are finalizing clarifications to the interpretation
that I believe will alleviate this ambiguity and allow contracts
with volumetric optionality that truly are intended to address
uncertainty with respect to the parties' future production capacity
or delivery needs, and not for speculative purposes or as a means to
obtain one-way price protection, to fall within the exclusion.

Appendix 3--Concurring Statement of CFTC Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen

    Today we are approving a final interpretation regarding forward
contracts with embedded optionality. This interpretation is improved
compared to the proposed interpretation and I am voting in favor of
it. However, I am concerned that this interpretation does not
provide the clarity that may be required.
    Staff has done a remarkable job in considering the comments
received and drafting this final interpretation and they deserve
ample praise for their hard work. Yet, staff, and this Commission,
face statutory restrictions regarding the definitions of forwards
and options that place limits on the relief available through
interpretations of the forward contract exclusion. There is no
interpretation, by this Commission or its staff, which can turn an
option into a forward.
    Given the interpretive questions about the final rule defining
``swap'' and the difficulties in classifying forward contracts with
embedded optionality, I think it is important to be clear on what
this interpretation can and cannot do--I do not want people to make
business decisions based upon a mistaken belief that they have
received relief when they have not.
    The central issue industry faces is that, in the manufacturing,
agriculture and energy sectors, a wide variety of physically-
delivered instruments are used to secure companies' commercial needs
for a physical commodity. These instruments often contain elements
of both a forward contract and a commodity option. These contracts,
particularly in the energy sector, are all commonly referred to as
physical contracts, and they, according to what I have been told,
often receive similar treatment from both a business operations and
an accounting standpoint within the entities that use them.
    Furthermore, my understanding is that these physical contracts
are often handled and accounted for separately from other
derivatives, such as futures contracts or cash-settled swaps.
Treating some portion of these physical contracts as swaps simply
because they may contain some characteristics of commodity options
can lead to significant costs and difficulties. For instance,
companies may have to reconfigure their business systems to parse
transactions where there was, before Dodd Frank, no need to
undertake such a reconfiguration.
    I have studied this issue closely, meeting with industry and the
public and reviewing the comments we have received. In the case of
these transactions which are used to address physical commodity
needs, I have doubts about whether any public interest is served by
requiring manufacturing, agricultural and energy companies to
undertake such a burden and reconfigure processes to comply with
Commission swap regulations.
    The limits on relief through this interpretation flow from the
statutory lines drawn between options and forward contracts. Under
the CEA, options and forwards are discrete, mutually exclusive
categories. Options are subject to the Commission's plenary,
exclusive jurisdiction. Forward contracts, on the other hand, are
almost entirely excluded from the Commission's jurisdiction. If a
contract, or some portion of a contract, meets the definition of an
``option,'' that portion which is an option inherently cannot be a
forward contract.
    Under the CEA, a critical difference between a physically-
delivered option and a forward contract is the nature of the
delivery obligation. A forward contract binds both parties to make
and take delivery of a commodity at some date in the future. The
contract may only be offset through a separate negotiation of the
parties. In a physically-settled option contract, only the party
offering the option is bound to make or take delivery at the time of
contract.
    The forward contract exclusion from the swap definition, applies
only to a ``[A] sale of a nonfinancial commodity or security for
deferred shipment or delivery, so long as the transaction is
intended to be physically settled.'' The key part of this definition
is that it only applies to a ``sale'' of a commodity. A ``sale''
means that one party has agreed to make and the other to take
delivery of that commodity.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The phrase, ``so long as the transaction is intended to by
physically settled,'' has been interpreted by the Commission to be
consistent with its traditional approach to determining whether an
instrument is a forward contract. As was stated in the Commission's
proposed rule,
    The CFTC believes that the forward contract exclusion in the
Dodd-Frank Act with respect to nonfinancial commodities should be
read consistently with th[e] established, historical understanding
that a forward contract is a commercial merchandising transaction.
    Many commenters discussed the issue of whether the requirement
in the Dodd-Frank Act that a transaction be ``intended to be
physically settled'' in order to qualify for the forward exclusion
from the swap definition with respect to nonfinancial commodities
reflects a change in the standard for determining whether a
transaction is a forward contract. Because a forward contract is a
commercial merchandising transaction, intent to deliver historically
has been an element of the CFTC's analysis of whether a particular
contract is a forward contract. In assessing the parties'
expectations or intent regarding delivery, the CFTC consistently has
applied a ``facts and circumstances'' test. Therefore, the CFTC
reads the ``intended to be physically settled'' language in the swap
definition with respect to nonfinancial commodities to reflect a
directive that intent to deliver a physical commodity be a part of
the analysis of whether a given contract is a forward contract or a
swap, just as it is a part of the CFTC's analysis of whether a given
contract is a forward contract or a futures contract. Proposed Rule
on ``Further Definition of `Swap,' `Security-Based Swap,' and
`Security-Based Swap Agreement'; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap
Agreement Recordkeeping, 76 FR 29818, 29828 (May 23, 2011)
(``Proposed Products Release'').
    This interpretation was ratified in the final rule, ``Further
Definition of `Swap,' `Security-Based Swap,' and `Security-Based
Swap Agreement'; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement
Recordkeeping, 77 FR 48208, 48227-48228 (August 13, 2012)
(``Products Release'').

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

    An option, in contrast, is only the option to undertake such a
``sale'', not the sale itself. The sale occurs only when the option
is exercised. The option to buy or sell a commodity at some later
point simply is not the same thing as the sale of that commodity
itself. The Commission's Office of the General Counsel memorialized
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this interpretation in 1985:

    [T]he [forward] contract must be a binding agreement on both
parties to the contract: One must agree to make delivery and the
other to take delivery of the commodity. Second, because forward
contracts are commercial, merchandizing transactions which result in
delivery, the courts and the Commission have looked for evidence of
the transactions' use in commerce. Thus, the courts and the
Commission have examined whether the parties to the contracts are
commercial entities that have the capacity to make or take delivery
and whether delivery, in fact, routinely occurs under such contracts
* * * * *
    Thus, an option is a contract in which only the grantor is
obligated to perform. As a result, the option purchaser has a
limited risk from adverse price movements. This characteristic
distinguishes an option from a forward contract in which both
parties must routinely perform and face the full risk of loss from
adverse price changes since one party must make and the other take
delivery of the commodity. In contrast, in an option, only the
grantor of a call (put) is required to sell (buy) a given quantity
of a commodity (or a futures contract on that commodity) on or by a
specified date in the future if the option is exercised.
``Characteristics Distinguishing Cash and Forward Contracts and
`Trade Options' '', 50 FR 39656-02 (September 30, 1985)
    The Commission ratified this interpretation in 1990 in its
``Statutory Interpretation Concerning Forward Transactions'', 55 FR
39188-03 (September 25, 1990) (``Brent Interpretation'') and again
in 2012 its final rule, ``Further Definition of `Swap,' `Security-
Based Swap,' and `Security-Based Swap Agreement'; Mixed Swaps;
Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, 77 FR 48208, 48227-
48235 (August 13, 2012) (``Products Release''). In doing so, the
Commission explicitly rejected the argument that physically-
delivered commodity options could fall within the forward contract
exclusion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See also, Products Release at 4236-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The interpretation being promulgated today does not change this,
and therein lays my concern regarding this interpretation's limits.
    I think much of the confusion regarding the seven-part test has
been based upon a failure to recognize the difference between
forward and option contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act. The
fact that a forward contract element and a commodity option are
packaged together does not change the regulatory treatment of the
different components. Hybrid or packaged instruments are common
throughout the industry. There are hybrid or packaged instruments
which may have characteristics of futures contracts and securities,
swaps and security-based swaps, futures and forward transactions,
and even forward contracts and commodity options. Each portion of
the contract might be subject to different regulatory treatment. A
security does not become a future, nor does a future become a
security simply by virtue of being packaged in the same instrument.
    Relevant to the instruments we are discussing today, forward
contracts with embedded volumetric optionality, it seems that most
of them, as described in the comments, have at least two separate,
identifiable contractual obligations, each of which must be
considered on their own merits. There is a forward contract element
which binds the parties to make and take delivery of a set amount of
a commodity. In addition, there is an embedded volumetric
optionality element that binds the forward contract offeror to make
or take delivery of an additional amount of the commodity if the
embedded volumetric optionality is exercised by the forward contract
offeree. The latter contractual obligation looks like a classic
option.
    The difficulty this interpretation faces in providing the relief
industry seeks is this: Even though the embedded optionality has the
form of an option, can it somehow fit within the forward exclusion?
The answer this interpretation gives is, essentially, yes, it can,
if it can be demonstrated that, despite the embedded optionality
having the form of an option, it is utilized, in practice, as a
forward contract. While the seven-prong test and the interpretive
guidance around it do not provide an exact roadmap for determining
when embedded volumetric optionality included in a forward contract
may or may not fall into the option definition, or when embedded
volumetric optionality may undermine a forward contract, I think it
does provide a good sense of the factors that parties must consider
in making those determinations for themselves.
    Such a test, however, is necessarily a facts and circumstances
test with no bright lines. Ensuring compliance with this
interpretation poses a challenge, and, therefore, that is an area
where I would like to see greater legal certainty for these
contracts.
    In closing, I support this final interpretation, but I think
industry would benefit from broader relief that provides greater
legal certainty. I look forward to continuing to work with my fellow
Commissioners and staff to make sure that commercial entities have
access to the tools they need to manage the commercial risks of
their operations.

[FR Doc. 2015-11946 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-p 6351-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 2710]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00570]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending December 22, 2012. The
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures.
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT- OST-2012-0210.
    Date Filed: December 17, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: January 7, 2013.
    Description: Application of SmartLynx Airlines Estonia OU
requesting a foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority
authorizing the carrier to operate charter foreign air transportation
of persons, property and mail (a) between any point or points behind
the European Union, via any point or points in the European Union and
intermediate points, to any point or points in the United States, and
beyond; (b) between any point or points in the European Common Aviation
Area and any point or points in the United States; (c) pursuant to the
prior approval requirements of Part 212; and (d) any additional rights
that are made available to EU carriers under the U.S.-European Union
agreements, as amended.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0212.
    Date Filed: December 20, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: January 10, 2013.
    Description: Application of Arubaanse Luchtvaart Maatschappji,
N.V., d/b/a Aruba Airlines requesting a foreign air carrier permit and
corresponding exemption authorizing it to engage in: (1) Scheduled air
transportation of persons, property and mail from a point or points
behind Aruba, via Aruba and intermediate points, to a point or points
in the United States and beyond; (2) all-cargo services between the
United States and any point or points; (3) fifth freedom charter
services pursuant to the prior approval requirements; (4) and for such
other, further, or different relief as may be proper.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Acting Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-00570 Filed 1-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 210 (Thursday, October 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68586-68589]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2064]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Chief executive officer of                                    Online location of letter of map                            Community
         State and county          Location and case No.             community               Community map repository                 revision                Date of modification       No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:.........................
    Madison......................  City of Madison (19-   The Honorable Paul Finley,      Engineering Department, 100    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Oct. 13, 2020.........       010308
                                    04-3126P).             Mayor, City of Madison, 100     Hughes Road, Madison, AL       advanceSearch.
                                                           Hughes Road, Madison, AL        35758.
                                                           35758.
Colorado:
    Boulder......................  City of Boulder (20-   The Honorable Sam Weaver,       Central Records Department,    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 7, 2021..........       080024
                                    08-0376P).             Mayor, City of Boulder, P.O.    1777 Broadway, Boulder, CO     advanceSearch.
                                                           Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306.     80306.
    Boulder......................  Town of Jamestown (20- The Honorable Tara              Town Hall, 118 Main Street,    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 11, 2021.........       080216
                                    08-0179P).             Schoedinger, Mayor, Town of     Jamestown, CO 80455.           advanceSearch.
                                                           Jamestown, P.O. Box 298,
                                                           Jamestown, CO 80455.
Florida:
    Collier......................  City of Naples (20-04- The Honorable Teresa Heitmann,  Building Department, 295       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 19, 2021.........       125130
                                    3512P).                Mayor, City of Naples, 735      Riverside Circle, Naples, FL   advanceSearch.
                                                           8th Street South, 2nd Floor,    34102.
                                                           Naples, FL 34102.
    Lee..........................  Town of Fort Myers     The Honorable Ray Murphy,       Community Development          https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 24, 2020.........       120673
                                    Beach (20-04-2530P).   Mayor, Town of Fort Myers       Department, 2525 Estero        advanceSearch.
                                                           Beach, 2525 Estero Boulevard,   Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach,
                                                           Fort Myers Beach, FL 33931.     FL 33931.
    Monroe.......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Heather           Monroe County Building         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 4, 2021..........       125129
                                    of Monroe County (20-  Carruthers, Mayor, Monroe       Department, 2798 Overseas      advanceSearch.
                                    04-3334P).             County Board of                 Highway, Suite 300,
                                                           Commissioners, 500 Whitehead    Marathon, FL 33050.
                                                           Street, Suite 102, Key West,
                                                           FL 33040.
    Palm Beach...................  City of Westlake (20-  The Honorable Roger Manning,    City Hall, 4001 Seminole       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 29, 2020.........       120018
                                    04-1257P).             Mayor, City of Westlake, 4001   Pratt Whitney Road,            advanceSearch.
                                                           Seminole Pratt Whitney Road,    Westlake, FL 33470.
                                                           Westlake, FL 33470.
Georgia:
    Mitchell.....................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Benjamin          Mitchell County Building and   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 7, 2021..........       130438
                                    of Mitchell County     Hayward, Chairman, Mitchell     Zoning Department, 26 North    advanceSearch.
                                    (20-04-3145P).         County Board of                 Court Street, Camilla, GA
                                                           Commissioners, 26 North Court   31730.
                                                           Street, Camilla, GA 31730.

    Oconee.......................  City of Watkinsville   The Honorable Bob Smith,        City Hall, 191 VFW Drive,      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 8, 2021..........       130369
                                    (19-04-6350P).         Mayor, City of Watkinsville,    Watkinsville, GA 30677.        advanceSearch.
                                                           191 VFW Drive, Watkinsville,
                                                           GA 30677.
North Carolina: Brunswick........  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Frank Williams,   Brunswick County Department    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 4, 2021..........       370295
                                    of Brunswick County    Chairman, Brunswick County      of Floodplain Management       advanceSearch.
                                    (20-04-4291P).         Board of Commissioners, P.O.    Department, 75 Courthouse
                                                           Box 249, Bolivia, NC 28422.     Drive, Building 1, Bolivia,
                                                                                NC 28422.
South Carolina:
    Berkeley.....................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Johnny Cribb,     Berkeley County                https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 31, 2020.........       450029
                                    of Berkeley County     Chairman, Berkeley County       Administration Building,       advanceSearch.
                                    (19-04-6176P).         Council, 1003 Highway 52,       1003 Highway 52, Moncks
                                                           Moncks Corner, SC 29461.        Corner, SC 29461.
    Lexington....................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Scott Whetstone,  Lexington County Community     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 22, 2021.........       450129
                                    of Lexington County    Chairman, Lexington County      Development Department, 212    advanceSearch.
                                    (20-04-1249P).         Council, 212 South Lake         South Lake Drive, Suite 601,
                                                           Drive, Suite 601, Lexington,    Lexington, SC 29072.
                                                           SC 29072.
Texas:
    Bexar........................  City of San Antonio    The Honorable Ron Nirenberg,    Transportation and Capitol     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 28, 2020.........       480045
                                    (20-06-2465P).         Mayor, City of San Antonio,     Improvements Department,       advanceSearch.
                                                           P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio,   Storm Water Division, 114
                                                           TX 78283.                       West Commerce Street, 7th
                                                                                Floor, San Antonio, TX
                                                                                78205.
    Bexar........................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff,  Bexar County Public Works      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 28, 2020.........       480035
                                    of Bexar County (19-   Bexar County Judge, 101 West    Department, 1948 Probandt      advanceSearch.
                                    06-3962P).             Nueva Street, 10th Floor, San   Street, San Antonio, TX
                                                           Antonio, TX 78205.              78214.
    Bexar........................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff,  Bexar County Public Works      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 28, 2020.........       480035
                                    of Bexar County (20-   Bexar County Judge, 101 West    Department, 1948 Probandt      advanceSearch.
                                    06-0078P).             Nueva Street, 10th Floor, San   Street, San Antonio, TX
                                                           Antonio, TX 78205.              78214.
    Bexar........................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff,  Bexar County Public Works      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 28, 2020.........       480035
                                    of Bexar County (20-   Bexar County Judge, 101 West    Department, 1948 Probandt      advanceSearch.
                                    06-2465P).             Nueva Street, 10th Floor, San   Street, San Antonio, TX
                                                           Antonio, TX 78205.              78214.
    Collin and Dallas............  City of Sachse (20-06- Ms. Gina Nash, Manager, City    Engineering Department, 3815   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 8, 2021..........       480186
                                    1068P).                of Sachse, 3815 Sachse Road,    Sachse Road, Building B,       advanceSearch.
                                                           Building B, Sachse, TX 75048.   Sachse, TX 75048.
    Ellis........................  City of Midlothian     The Honorable Richard Reno,     City Hall, 104 West Avenue E,  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 15, 2021.........       480801
                                    (20-06-1890P).         Mayor, City of Midlothian,      Midlothian, TX 76065.          advanceSearch.
                                                           104 West Avenue E,
                                                           Midlothian, TX 76065.
    Ellis........................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Todd Little,      Ellis County Engineering       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 4, 2021..........       480798
                                    of Ellis County (20-   Ellis County Judge, 101 West    Department, 109 South          advanceSearch.
                                    06-1084P).             Main Street, Waxahachie, TX     Jackson Street, Waxahachie,
                                                           75165.                          TX 75165.
    Guadalupe....................  City of Cibolo (20-06- Mr. Robert T. Herrera,          Geographic Information         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 7, 2021..........       480267
                                    0736P).                Manager, City of Cibolo, 200    Systems (GIS) Department,      advanceSearch.
                                                           South Main Street, Cibolo, TX   200 South Main Street,
                                                           78108.                          Cibolo, TX 78108.
    Guadalupe....................  City of Schertz (20-   Mr. Mark Browne, Manager, City  Geographic Information         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 7, 2021..........       480269
                                    06-0736P).             of Schertz, 1400 Schertz        Systems (GIS) Department, 10   advanceSearch.
                                                           Parkway, Schertz, TX 78154.     Commercial Place, Schertz,
                                                                                TX 78154.
    Harris.......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Lina Hidalgo,     Harris County Permit Office,   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 28, 2020.........       480287
                                    of Harris County (20-  Harris County Judge, 1001       10555 Northwest Freeway,       advanceSearch.
                                    06-2070P).             Preston Street, Suite 911,      Suite 120, Houston, TX
                                                           Houston, TX 77002.              77092.
    Johnson......................  City of Venus (20-06-  The Honorable James L.          Public Works and Water/Sewer   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 4, 2021..........       480883
                                    1084P).                Burgess, Mayor, City of         Department, 700 West Highway   advanceSearch.
                                                           Venus, 700 West Highway 67,     67, Venus, TX 76084.
                                                           Venus, TX 76084.

    Midland......................  City of Midland (19-   The Honorable Patrick Payton,   City Hall, 300 North Loraine   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 29, 2020.........       480477
                                    06-3886P).             Mayor, City of Midland, 300     Street, Midland, TX 79701.     advanceSearch.
                                                           North Loraine Street,
                                                           Midland, TX 79701.
    Tarrant......................  City of Fort Worth     The Honorable Betsy Price,      Transportation and Public      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 25, 2021.........       480596
                                    (20-06-1803P).         Mayor, City of Fort Worth,      Works Department,              advanceSearch.
                                                           200 Texas Street, Fort Worth,   Engineering Vault, 200 Texas
                                                           TX 76102.                       Street, Fort Worth, TX
                                                                                76102.
Utah:
    Davis........................  City of Clearfield     Mr. J.J. Allen, Manager, City   City Hall, 55 South State      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 19, 2021.........       490041
                                    (20[dash]08[dash]026   of Clearfield, 55 South State   Street, Clearfield, UT         advanceSearch.
                                    6P).                   Street, Clearfield, UT 84015.   84015.
    Davis........................  City of Clearfield     Mr. J.J. Allen, Manager, City   City Hall, 55 South State      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 4, 2021..........       490041
                                    (20[dash]08[dash]026   of Clearfield, 55 South State   Street, Clearfield, UT         advanceSearch.
                                    7P).                   Street, Clearfield, UT 84015.   84015.
Virginia: Loudoun................  Unincorporated areas   Mr. Tim Hemstreet, Loudoun      Loudoun County Mapping and     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 28, 2020.........       510090
                                    of Loudoun County      County Administrator, P.O.      Geographic Information         advanceSearch.
                                    (20-03-0748P).         Box 7000, Leesburg, VA 20177.   Department, 1 Harrison
                                                                                Street Southeast, Leesburg,
                                                                                VA 20175.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-23974 Filed 10-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17214-17216]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06761]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71769; File No. SR-OCC-2014-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Reflect the Elimination of a Discount to OCC's Clearing Fee Schedule

March 21, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 21, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\
thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    OCC proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees, effective April 1,
2014, to reflect the elimination of a discount to OCC's clearing fee
schedule.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend OCC's Schedule
of Fees to reinstate the permanent reduced fee schedule adopted,
effective May 1, 2007, for securities options and securities
futures.\5\ In conjunction with adopting this permanent reduced fee
schedule, OCC simultaneously discounted the permanent schedule.
Effective January 1, 2008, OCC replaced the May 1, 2007, discounted
schedule \6\ with the discount remaining in effect until further action
of by the Board. Implementation of this schedule was premised on the
discounts not adversely affecting OCC's ability to meet its expenses
and maintain an acceptable level of retained earnings. Article IX,
Section 9 of OCC's By-Laws permits OCC to establish a fee structure to
cover operating expenses, to maintain reserves as are deemed reasonably
necessary by the Board to provide facilities for the conduct of OCC's
business and to accumulate such additional surplus as the Board deems
advisable to allow OCC to meet its obligations to clearing members and
the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-55709 (May 4, 2007), 72 FR
26669 (May 10, 2007) (SR-OCC-2007-05). This schedule is applied to
futures and futures options as well.
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-57192 (January 24, 2008), 73
FR 5618 (January 30, 2008) (SR-OCC-2007-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC has determined to reinstate its permanent reduced fee schedule.
OCC's revenues principally are derived from clearing fees charged to
clearing members and OCC's current and projected operating expenses
have increased due to current and anticipated regulatory
requirements.\7\ These requirements include those proposed by the
Commission at its meeting on March 12, 2014, requiring OCC to be in a
position to cover potential general business losses so that it can
continue operations if those losses materialize.\8\ OCC's current and
anticipated operating expenses have also increased as a result of costs
associated with the engagement of outside professionals to address
various regulatory issues arising under the Dodd-Frank Act, notably
additional expectations and requirements arising from OCC's status as a
Systemically Important Financial Market Utility (``SIFMU''), and OCC's
assessment of and compliance with international standards applicable to
clearing agencies. Employee costs additionally are expected to rise
further in 2014 as resources are enhanced to meet current and
anticipated regulatory obligations, including increased requirements to
produce data, analysis and information to the Commission in connection
with its exercise of its supervisory authority over OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income in OCC's
2013 Annual Report available on OCC's Web site, www.theocc.com. In
2013, clearing fees represented over 90% of OCC's total revenues.
Between 2012 and 2013, OCC annual expenses increased by
approximately 9%. OCC's currently projects a greater increase in
expenses in 2014.
    \8\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-71699 (March 12, 2014). OCC
anticipates that these requirements will need to be met by the end
of 2014. The determination to reinstate the permanent reduced fee
schedule was based on an analysis of such requirements and such
reinstatement being effective April 1, 2014. Implementation
thereafter potentially could have required an increase in the fees
beyond the reinstatement of the permanent reduced fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Board unanimously determined to reinstate the
permanent reduced fee schedule to compensate for these increased
expenses. In making this determination, the Board carefully considered
the requirements of Article IX, Section 9 of OCC's By-Laws as well as
the expectations and obligations imposed upon OCC as a SIFMU in the
national system for clearance and settlement. The Board further
evaluated the potential for a refund of clearing fees in 2014. While no
affirmative decision has been made by the Board regarding such refund,
the Board recognized that OCC's current funding, reserve and surplus
needs might result in refunds, if any, which are significantly lower in
2014 than in past years.\9\ OCC will monitor the impact of returning to
the permanent reduced fee schedule as well as OCC's needs to evaluate
whether additional action should be taken. For example, changes in
revenues as a result of significant fluctuations in cleared volume
(upwards or downwards) may

prompt a re-assessment of the fee schedule (downwards or upwards).
Cleared volumes also will be evaluated in connection with considering
potential refunds for 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See OCC's 2013 Annual Report, Footnote 8 to the Notes to the
Financial Statements for a description of recent past refunds.
Footnote 8 further discusses that OCC's Board sets clearing fees and
determines the amounts of refunds, fee reductions and discounts, if
any, based upon OCC's current funding needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The impact of the costs to comply with the new regulatory
requirements and reinstate the permanent reduced fee schedule and the
potential effect on a 2014 refund, if any, was discussed with each of
the clearing members that would be most affected by these changes, most
of which are represented on the Board. The vote of the Board to approve
this filing included the affirmative votes of the six Member Directors
present at the meeting.
    The following chart sets forth the revised clearing fee schedule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Current       Standard fee schedule
        Contracts/trade          discounted fee    (effective April 1,
                                    schedule              2014)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-500.........................  $0.03/contract.  $0.05/contract
501-1,000.....................  0.024/contract.  0.04/contract
1,001-2,000...................  18.00/trade....  0.03/contract
>2,000........................  18.00/trade....  55.00/trade
Market Maker/Specialist         0.01...........  0.02
 Scratch per side.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC published an Information Memo on March 10, 2014, to all of its
clearing members and exchanges notifying them of the changes to the
Schedule of Fees that would become effective as of April 1, 2014, \10\
and a second Information Memo on March 13, 2014, notifying them of the
likely effects on the refunds for 2014. The Information Memos informed
clearing members and exchanges that due to current and projected
increases in operating expenses related to regulatory requirements, OCC
would reinstate the permanent reduced clearing fee schedule adopted May
1, 2007, and that refunds based on 2014 cleared volume are likely to be
significantly lower in 2014 as a result of the new regulatory
expectations and requirements, but that it was expected that such
impacts should not extend beyond 2014 based on current projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ OCC has represented that notwithstanding its immediate
effectiveness, implementation of this rule change will be delayed
until this rule change is deemed certified under CFTC Regulation
Sec.  40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(D) \11\ of the Act, because by eliminating a discount but
otherwise leaving the current clearing fee schedule intact, OCC will
continue to equitably allocate fees among its clearing members and
other market participants. OCC also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(9) \12\ because the fee
schedule amended by this rule change is publicly available and
therefore provides clearing members and other market participants with
sufficient information to allow them to identify and evaluate the costs
associated with OCC's services. The proposed rule change is not
inconsistent with the existing rules of the OCC including any other
rules proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule
change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not
impose a burden on competition that is unnecessary or inappropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to the rules of a clearing agency may have an impact on the
participants in a clearing agency, their customers, and the markets
that the clearing agency serves. This proposed rule change primarily
affects such users and OCC believes that the proposed modifications
would not disadvantage or favor any particular user in relationship to
another user because the discount is being eliminated for, and the
clearing fees apply equally to, all users of OCC's services.
    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule
change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not
impose a burden on competition that is unnecessary or inappropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2),\15\ the
proposed rule change is filed for immediate effectiveness inasmuch as
it pertains to fees charged to OCC clearing members. At any time within
60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2014-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2014-05. This file
number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method of
submission. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
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 Section, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web site at
http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_14_05.pdf.
    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-OCC-2014-05
and should be submitted on or before April 17, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06761 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13728-13729]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06679]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form S-8, SEC File No. 270-66, OMB Control No. 3235-0066

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form S-8 (17 CFR 239.16b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) is the primary registration statement used by
eligible registrants to register securities to be issued in connection
with an employee benefit plan. We estimate that Form S-8 takes
approximately 24 hours per response to prepare and is filed by
approximately 2,059 respondents. In addition, we estimate that 50% of
the preparation time (12 hours) is completed in-house by the filer for
a total annual reporting burden of 24,708 (12 hours per response x
2,059 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection

of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions
submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: April 2, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06679 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Acronyms

AHRQ	Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

AQS	Air Quality System

BenMAP	Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program

BWC	Best workplaces for commuters

CAAA	Clean Air Act Amendments

CAIR	Clean Air Interstate Rule

CAMR	Clean Air Mercury Rule

CAPMS	Criteria Air Pollutant Modeling System

CAVR	Clean Air Visibility Rule

CDC	Centers for Disease Control

CDC WONDER	Centers for Disease Control Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiological Research

CFR	Code of Federal Regulations

CI	Confidence interval

CMAQ	Community Multi-Scale Air Quality

COI	Cost of illness

COPD	Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CPI-U	Consumer price index – urban

C-R	concentration-response

DOE	Department of Energy

DOI	Department of the Interior

DPF	Diesel Particulate Filters

EGU	electric generating unit

EIA	Economic Impact Analysis

EO	Executive Order

EPA	Environmental Protection Agency

ER	Emergency room

HIS	National Health Interview Survey

ICD	International Classification of Disease

IPM	Integrated Planning Model

km	kilometer

kWh	kilowatt hour

MACT	Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MRAD	Minor restricted activity days

MWRPO	Mid-West Regional Planning Organization

NAAQS	National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAS	National Academy of Sciences

NCHS	National Center for Health Statistics

NEI	National Emissions Inventory

NHAMCS	National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

NHANES	National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

NHDS	National Hospital Discharge Survey

NMMAPS	National Morbidity, Mortality and Air Pollution Study

Non-EGU	Non-Electricity Generating Unit

NOx	nitrogen oxides

O&M	operation and maintenance

OAQPS	Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (EPA)

OH	Hydroxide

OMB	Office of Management and Budget

ORD	Office of Research and Development (EPA)

OTAQ	Office of Trasnportation and Air Quality (EPA)

OTC	Ozone Transport Commission

PM	particulate matter

PM10	Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns

PM2.5	Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns

POC	Parameter occurrence code

ppb	parts per billion

ppm	parts per million

RIA	Regulatory Impact Analysis

RVP	Reid vapor pressure

SCR	selective catalytic reduction

SIP	state implementation plan

SMR	standard mortality rate

SNCR	selective non-catalytic reduction

SO2	Sulfur dioxide

US	United States

USC	US code

USDA	United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA	United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS	United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS	United States Geological Survey

UV-B	ultraviolet light, type B

VNA	Voronoi neighbor averaging

VOC	Volatile Organic Compounds

VSL	Value of statistical life

WHO	World Health Organization

WTP	Willingness to pay