[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80215-80216]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No 2020-0260]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Verification
of Authenticity of Foreign License, Rating, and Medical Certification;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on 4/15/2020. The collection involves information used to
identify foreign airmen in order to allow the agency to verify their
foreign license when used to qualify for a U.S. certificate.
Respondents are holders of foreign licenses wishing to obtain U.S.
Certificates.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A Hawkins by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone: 1-405-954-7045.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0724.
    Title: Verification of Foreign License, Rating and Medical
Certification.
    Form Numbers: Form 8060-71.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on 04/15/2020 (85 FR 21061). The information collected is
used to properly identify airmen to allow the agency to verify their
foreign license being used to qualify for a U.S. certificate. The
respondents are holders of a foreign license wishing to obtain a U.S.
certificate. A person who is applying for a U.S. pilot certificate or
rating on the basis of a foreign pilot license must apply for
verification of that license at least 90 days before arriving at the
designated FAA FSDO where the applicant intends to receive the U.S.
pilot certificate.
    Respondents: Approximately 8,700 foreign applicants for U.S.
certificates annually.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,450 Hours.

    Issued in Oklahoma City, OK on November 19, 2020.
Margaret A Hawkins,
Compliance Specialist, Forms Manager, Airmen Certification Branch, AFB-
720.
[FR Doc. 2020-26004 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30931-30932]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13899]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81029; File No. SR-ICC-2017-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice
Relating to the Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap Contracts

June 27, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4,\2\ notice is hereby given that on
June 13, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice as described in Items I, II and III
below, which Items have been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the
ICC Rulebook (the ``Rules'') to provide for the clearance of additional
Standard Emerging Market Sovereign CDS contracts (collectively, ``EM
Contracts'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC 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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will
provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap
contracts. ICC believes the addition of these contracts will benefit
the market for credit default swaps by providing market participants
the benefits of clearing, including reduction in counterparty risk and
safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules.
Clearing of the additional EM Contracts will not require any changes to
ICC's Risk Management Framework or other policies and procedures
constituting rules within the meaning of the Act.
    ICC proposes amending Subchapter 26D of its Rules to provide for
the clearance of additional EM Contracts, specifically the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Kazakhstan. These additional EM
Contracts have terms consistent with the other EM Contracts approved
for clearing at ICC and governed by Subchapter 26D of the Rules. Minor
revisions to Subchapter 26D (Standard Emerging Market Sovereign
(``SES'') Single Name) are made to provide for clearing the additional
EM Contracts. Specifically, in Rule 26D-102 (Definitions), ``Eligible
SES Reference Entities'' is modified to include the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia and the Republic of Kazakhstan in the list of specific Eligible
SES Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. The additional EM

Contracts are similar to the EM Contracts currently cleared by ICC, and
will be cleared pursuant to ICC's existing clearing arrangements and
related financial safeguards, protections and risk management
procedures. Clearing of the additional EM Contracts will allow market
participants an increased ability to manage risk and ensure the
safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules. ICC
believes that acceptance of the new EM Contracts, on the terms and
conditions set out in the Rules, is consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance of and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC,
and the protection of investors and the public interest, within the
meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing of the additional EM Contracts will also satisfy the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\5\ In particular, in terms of financial
resources, ICC will apply its existing initial margin methodology to
the additional contracts. ICC believes that this model will provide
sufficient initial margin requirements to cover its credit exposure to
its clearing members from clearing such contracts, consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).\6\ In addition, ICC believes its
Guaranty Fund, under its existing methodology, will, together with the
required initial margin, provide sufficient financial resources to
support the clearing of the additional contracts consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).\7\ ICC also believes that its
existing operational and managerial resources will be sufficient for
clearing of the additional contracts, consistent with the requirements
of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4),\8\ as the new contracts are substantially the
same from an operational perspective as existing contracts. Similarly,
ICC will use its existing settlement procedures and account structures
for the new contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(5), (12) and (15) \9\ as to the finality and accuracy of its
daily settlement process and avoidance of the risk to ICC of settlement
failures. ICC determined to accept the additional EM Contracts for
clearing in accordance with its governance process, which included
review of the contracts and related risk management considerations by
the ICC Risk Committee and approval by its Board. These governance
arrangements are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(8).\10\ Finally, ICC will apply its existing default management
policies and procedures for the additional EM Contracts. ICC believes
that these procedures allow for it to take timely action to contain
losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its obligations
in the event of clearing member insolvencies or defaults in respect of
the additional single names, in accordance with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(11).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The additional EM Contracts will be available to all ICC
participants for clearing. The clearing of these additional EM
Contracts by ICC does not preclude the offering of the additional EM
Contracts for clearing by other market participants. Accordingly, ICC
does not believe that clearance of the additional EM Contracts will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate 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 relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2017-008 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-ICC-2017-008. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2017-008
and should be submitted on or before July 24, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13899 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8133-8135]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0136; Notice No. 15-5]

Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Requests (ICRs)
discussed below will be forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for renewal and extension. These ICRs describe the nature
of the information collections and their expected burdens. A Federal
Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on
these ICRs was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2014
[79 FR 69990] under Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0136 (Notice No. 14-13).
PHMSA did not receive any substantive comments in response to this
November 24, 2014 notice.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on, or before
March 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, by mail to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for DOT-PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington,
DC 20503, by fax,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email, to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should refer to the information
collection by title and/or OMB Control Number.

    We invite comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster,
Standards and Rulemaking Division (PHH-12), U.S. Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590-0001, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8 (d), title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires Federal agencies to provide interested members of
the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on
information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice
identifies information collection requests that PHMSA will be
submitting to OMB for renewal and extension. These information
collections are contained in 49 CFR parts 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, and
180 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171
through 180). PHMSA has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to
reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in
proposed or final rules published since the information collections
were last approved. The following information is provided for each
information collection: (1) Title of the information collection,
including former title if a change is being made; (2) OMB Control
Number; (3) abstract of the information collection activity; (4)
description of affected persons; (5) estimate of total annual reporting
and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency of collection. PHMSA will
request a three-year term of approval for each information collection
activity and, when approved by OMB, publish notice of the approvals in
the Federal Register.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:

    Title: Testing, Inspection, and Marking Requirements for Cylinders.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0022.
    Abstract: Requirements in Sec.  173.301 for qualification,
maintenance, and use of cylinders require that cylinders be
periodically inspected and retested to ensure continuing compliance
with packaging standards. Information collection requirements address
registration of retesters and marking of cylinders by retesters with
their identification number and retest date following the completion of
required tests. Records showing the results of inspections and retests
must be kept by the cylinder owner or designated agent until expiration
of the retest period or until the cylinder is re-inspected or retested,
whichever occurs first. These requirements are intended to ensure that
retesters have the qualifications to perform tests and to identify to
cylinder fillers and users that cylinders are qualified for continuing
use. Information collection requirements in Sec.  173.303 require that
fillers of acetylene cylinders keep, for at least 30 days, a daily
record of the representative pressure to which cylinders are filled.
    Affected Public: Fillers, owners, users and retesters of reusable
cylinders.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 139,352.
    Total Annual Responses: 153,287.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 171,642.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Title: Rail Carrier and Tank Car Tanks Requirements, Rail Tank Car
Tanks--Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Rail.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0559.
    Abstract: This information collection consolidates and describes
the information provisions in parts 172, 173, 174, 179, and 180 of the
HMR on the transportation of hazardous materials by rail and the
manufacture, qualification, maintenance, and use of tank cars. The
types of information collected include:
    (1) Approvals of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Tank
Car committee: An approval is required from the AAR Tank Car Committee
for a tank car to be used for a commodity other than those specified in
part 173 and on the certificate of construction. This information is
used to ascertain whether a commodity is suitable for transportation in
a tank car. AAR approval is also required for an application for
approval of designs, materials and construction, conversion or
alteration of tank car tanks constructed to a specification in part
179, or an application for construction of tank cars to any new
specification. This information is used to ensure that the design,
construction, or modification of a tank car or the construction of a
tank car to a new specification is performed in accordance with the
applicable requirements.
    (2) Progress Reports: Each owner of a tank car that is required to
be modified to meet certain requirements specified in Sec.  173.31 must
submit a progress report to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
This information is used by FRA to ensure that all affected tank cars
are modified before the regulatory compliance date.
    (3) FRA Approvals: An approval is required from FRA to transport a
bulk packaging (such as a portable tank, IM portable tank, intermediate
bulk container, cargo tank, or multi-unit tank car tank) containing a
hazardous material in container-on-flat-car or trailer-on-flat-car
service other than as authorized by Sec.  174.63. FRA uses this
information to ensure that the bulk package is properly secured using
an adequate restraint system during transportation. An FRA approval is
also required for the movement of any tank car that does not conform to
the applicable requirements in the HMR. These latter movements are
currently being reported under the information collection for special
permit applications.
    (4) Manufacturer Reports and Certificate of Construction: These
documents are prepared by tank car manufacturers and used by owners,
users, and FRA personnel to verify that rail tank cars conform to the
applicable specification.
    (5) Quality Assurance Program: Facilities that build, repair, and
ensure the structural integrity of tank cars are required to develop
and implement a quality assurance program. This information is used by
the facility and DOT compliance personnel to ensure that each tank car
is constructed or repaired in accordance with the applicable
requirements.
    (6) Inspection Reports: A written report must be prepared and
retained for each tank car that is inspected and tested in accordance
with Sec.  180.509 of the HMR. Rail carriers, users, and the FRA use
this information to ensure that rail tank cars are properly maintained
and are in safe condition for transporting hazardous materials.
    Affected Public: Manufacturers, owners, and rail carriers of tank
cars.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 266.
    Total Annual Responses: 17,685.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,834.
    Frequency of Collection: Annually.

    Title: Testing Requirements for Non-bulk Packaging.

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0572.
    Abstract: This information collection consolidates and describes
the information provisions in parts 173 and 180 of the HMR on the
testing requirements for non-bulk packagings. This OMB control number
covers performance-oriented packaging standards and allows packaging
manufacturers and shippers more flexibility in selecting more
economical packagings for their products. This information collection
also allows customizing the design of packagings to better suit the
transportation environment that they will encounter and encourages
technological innovations, decreases packaging costs, and significantly
reduces the need for special permits.
    Affected Public: Each non-bulk packaging manufacturer that tests
packagings to ensure compliance with the HMR.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 5,000.
    Total Annual Responses: 15,500.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 32,500.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

William S. Schoonover,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-03049 Filed 2-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33802-33805]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13763]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67086; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Spread Margin Rules

May 31, 2012.
    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 May 29, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    This filing proposes universal spread margin rules. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    An option spread is typically characterized by the simultaneous
holding of a long and short option of the same type (put or call) where
both options overly the same security or instrument, but have different
exercise prices and/or expirations. To be eligible for spread margin
treatment, the long option may not expire before the short option.
These long put/short put or long call/short call spreads are known as
two-legged spreads.
    Since the inception of the Exchange, the margin requirements for
two-legged spreads have been specified in CBOE margin rules.\3\ The
margin requirement for a two-legged spread that is eligible for spread
margin treatment is its maximum risk based on the intrinsic values of
the options, exclusive of any net option premiums paid or received when
the positions were established.\4\ For example, consider the following
equity option spread:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Chapter 12. Rule 12.3(c)(5)(C)(4).
    \4\ Any net credit received for establishing a spread may be
applied to the margin requirement, if any. In the case of a spread
that is established for a net debit, the net debit must be paid for
in full.

Long 1 XYZ May2011 60 call
Short 1 XYZ May2011 50 call

    The maximum potential loss (i.e., risk) for this particular spread
would be a scenario where the price of the underlying stock (XYZ) is
$60 or higher. If the market price of XYZ is $60, the May2011 60 call
would have an intrinsic value of zero, because the right to buy at $60
when XYZ can be purchased in the market for $60 has no intrinsic value.
The May2011 50 call would have an intrinsic value of $10 because of the
$10 advantage gained by being able to buy at $50 when it costs $60 to
purchase XYZ in the market. Because each option contract controls 100
shares of the underlying stock, the intrinsic value, which was
calculated on a per share basis, is multiplied by 100, resulting in an
aggregate intrinsic value of $1,000 for the May2011 50 call.\5\
However, because the May2011 50 call is short, the $1,000 intrinsic
value is a loss, because it represents the cost to close (i.e., buy-
back) the short option. At an assumed XYZ market price of $60, netting
the intrinsic values of the options results in a loss of $1,000 (-
$1,000 + 0).\6\ Therefore, the maximum risk of, and margin requirement
for, this spread is $1,000. If there is no maximum risk (i.e., there is
no loss calculated at any of the exercise prices found in the spread),
no margin is required, but under Exchange margin rules any net debit
incurred to establish the spread would be required to be paid for in
full. Current CBOE Rule 12.3(c)(5)(C)(4) provides that, when the
exercise price of the long call (or short put) is less than or equal to
the exercise price of the offsetting short call (or long put), no
margin is required; and that when the exercise price of the long call
(or short put) is greater than the exercise price of the offsetting
short call (or long put) the amount of margin required is the lesser of
the margin requirement on the short option, if treated as uncovered, or
the difference in the aggregate exercise prices. The intrinsic value
calculation described above is essentially expressed, in different
words, in the current rule language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The result would be multiplied by the number of contracts
when more than a one-by-one contract spread is involved.
    \6\ At an assumed market price of $50, both the May2011 50 call
and May2011 60 call would have no intrinsic value. Thus, there is no
risk (provided any net debit is paid for in full) at an assumed
market price of $50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum risk remains constant at $1,000 for XYZ market prices
higher than $60 because for each incremental increase in the assumed
market price of XYZ above $60, the loss on the short option is equally
offset by a gain on the long option in terms of their intrinsic values.
By calculating the net intrinsic value of the options at each exercise
price found in the spread, as in the computation exemplified above, the
maximum risk of, and margin requirement for, any two-legged spread can
be determined.
    On August 23, 1999, the Exchange implemented specific definitions
and margin requirements for butterfly spreads and box spreads.\7\ In a
butterfly spread, a two-legged spread is combined with a second two-
legged spread (same type--put or call--and same underlying security) as
in the following example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The butterfly and box spread margin rules, and various other
CBOE margin rule changes, were approved by the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 27, 1999. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 41658 (July 27, 1999), 64 FR 42736 (SR-CBOE-97-67).

Long 1 XYZ May2011 50 call
Short 1 XYZ May2011 60 call

Long 1 XYZ May2011 70 call
Short 1 XYZ May2011 60 call

    Note that a short XYZ May2011 60 call option is common to both two-
legged spreads. Therefore, by adding the May2011 60 call options
together, the two spreads can be combined to form a butterfly spread as
follows:

Long 1 XYZ May2011 50 call
Short 2 XYZ May2011 60 calls
Long 1 XYZ May2010 70 call \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This configuration represents a long butterfly spread. The
opposite (i.e., short 1 XYZ May2011 50 call, long 2 XYZ May2011 60
calls and short 1 XYZ May2011 70 call) would be a short butterfly
spread.

    The margin requirement for a butterfly spread is its maximum risk.
The maximum risk can be determined

in the same manner as demonstrated above for two-legged spreads. In
this example, the net intrinsic values would be calculated at assumed
prices for the underlying of $50, $60 and $70, which are the exercise
prices found in the butterfly spread. The greatest loss, if any, from
among the net intrinsic values is the margin requirement. For this
particular butterfly spread, there is no loss in terms of net intrinsic
values at any of the assumed underlying prices ($50, $60 or $70).
Therefore, there is no margin requirement. However, the net debit
incurred to establish this butterfly spread must be paid for in full.
    In a box spread, a two-legged call spread is combined with a two-
legged put spread. The exercise prices of the long and short put
options are the reverse of the call spread. All options have the same
underlying security and expiration date. An example is as follows:

Long 1 XYZ May2011 50 call
Short 1 XYZ May2011 60 call

Long 1 XYZ May2011 60 put
Short 1 XYZ May2011 50 put \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This configuration represents a long box spread. The
opposite (i.e., short 1 XYZ May2011 50 call, long 1 XYZ May2011 60
call, short 1 May2011 60 put and long 1 XYZ May2011 50 put) would be
a short box spread.

    The margin requirement for a box spread, unless all options are
European style, is its maximum risk. The maximum risk of a box spread
can be determined in the same manner as demonstrated above for two-
legged spreads and butterfly spreads. In this example, the net
intrinsic values would be calculated at assumed prices for the
underlying of $50 and $60, which are the exercise prices found in the
box spread. The greatest loss, if any, from among the net intrinsic
values is the margin requirement. For this particular box spread (long
box spread), there is no loss in terms of net intrinsic values at
either of the assumed underlying prices ($50 or $60). Therefore, there
is no margin requirement. However, the net debit incurred to establish
this box spread must be paid for in full. In the case of a long box
spread where all options are European style, the margin requirement is
50% of the difference in the exercise prices (in aggregate).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A 50% margin requirement is allowed because a long box
spread has an intrinsic value at expiration equal to the difference
in the exercise prices (in aggregate), which will more than cover
the net debit incurred to establish the spread. A long box spread
is, essentially, a riskless position. The difference between the
value of the long box spread realizable at expiration and the lower
cost to establish the spread represents a risk-free rate of return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 13, 2003, the Exchange issued a Regulatory Circular
(RG03-066) to define additional types of multi-leg option spreads, and
to set margin requirements for these spreads through interpretation of
Exchange margin rules. The Regulatory Circular had been filed with the
Commission and was approved on August 8, 2003, on a one-year pilot
basis.\11\ The Regulatory Circular was reissued as RG04-90 (dated
August 16, 2004) and RG05-37 (dated April 6, 2005) pursuant to one-year
extensions of the pilot granted by the Commission on August 6, 2004,
and March 22, 2005, respectively.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48306 (Aug. 8,
2003), 68 FR 48974 (Aug. 15, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2003-24).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50164 (Aug. 6,
2004), 69 FR 50405 (Aug. 16, 2004) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 51407 (Mar. 22, 2005), 70 FR 15669 (Mar. 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regulatory Circular identified seven spread strategies by
presenting an example of each spread's configuration, and numbering
each configuration, rather than designating the configurations by names
commonly used in the industry. The seven configurations would be
referred to in the industry as:

Long Condor Spread,
Short Iron Butterfly Spread,
Short Iron Condor Spread,
Long Calendar Butterfly Spread,
Long Calendar Condor Spread,
Short Calendar Iron Butterfly Spread and
Short Calendar Iron Condor Spread.

    On July 30, 2004, the Exchange filed proposed rule amendments with
the Commission to codify the provisions of the Regulatory Circular in
Exchange margin rules. Included in the proposal were definitions of
Long Condor Spread (which includes a Long Calendar Condor Spread),
Short Iron Butterfly Spread (which includes a Short Calendar Iron
Butterfly Spread), and Short Iron Condor Spread (which includes a Short
Calendar Iron Condor Spread). In addition, it was proposed that the
existing definition of Long Butterfly Spread be amended to include a
Long Calendar Butterfly Spread. The margin requirements, specific to
each type of spread, as had been set-forth in the Regulatory Circulars,
were also proposed for inclusion in Exchange margin rules.\13\
Contemporaneously, the New York Stock Exchange filed similar margin
rule proposals with Commission.\14\ CBOE's proposed rule amendment was
approved by the Commission on December 14, 2005.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52739 (Nov. 4,
2005), 70 FR 69173 (Nov. 14, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-53). This release
also noticed a partial amendment (Amendment No. 1) that was filed on
August 23, 2005 (in coordination with the New York Stock Exchange).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52738 (Nov. 4,
2005), 70 FR 68501 (Nov. 10, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2004-39). For approval
order, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52951 (Dec. 14,
2005), 70 FR 75523 (Dec. 20, 2005).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 52950 (Dec. 14, 2005),
70 FR 75512 (Dec. 20, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because a number of variations are possible for each basic type of
multi-leg option spread strategy, it is problematic to maintain margin
rules specific to each.\16\ It becomes difficult to continually
designate each variation by name, and define and specify a margin
requirement for it in the rules. For example, consider the following
spreads:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A long calendar butterfly spread is an example of a
variation. The basic type would be butterfly spread. In a long
calendar butterfly spread, one of the long options expires after the
other two options expire concurrently, whereas in the basic
butterfly spread, all options expire concurrently. Another example
of a variation of a butterfly spread would be a configuration where
the intervals between the exercise prices involved are not equal. In
a basic butterfly spread, the intervals are equal (i.e., symmetric).

Long 10 XYZ May2011 50 call
Short 10 XYZ May2011 55 call

Long 5 XYZ May2010 70 call
Short 5 XYZ May2011 60 call

    These two spreads combined are a variation of a condor spread. In a
basic condor spread, the number of option contracts would be equal
across all option series and the interval between the exercise prices
of each spread would be equal. In the above variation, there is a 10-
by-10 contract spread vs. a 5-by-5 contract spread, and a spread with a
5 point interval between exercise prices vs. a spread with a 10 point
interval between exercise prices. The two spreads in the above example
offset each other in terms of risk, and no margin requirement is
necessary. However, margin of $5,000 is required under the Exchange's
current margin rules, because this variation of the condor spread is
not specified in the rules. Because it is not recognized in Exchange
margin rules, the two spreads must be treated as separate, unrelated
spread strategies for margin purposes. As a result, spread margin of
$5,000 is required (on the May2011 70/May2010 60 call spread) versus no
requirement (other than pay for the net debit in full), if the two
spreads could be recognized as one strategy.
    This rule filing proposes a single, universal definition of a
spread and one spread margin requirement that consists of a universal
margin requirement computation methodology. In this manner, the margin
requirement for all types of option spreads would be covered by a
single rule, without regard to the number of option series involved or
the term commonly used in the

industry to refer to the spread. This would eliminate the need to
define, and refer to, particular spreads by monikers commonly used in
the industry. Therefore, this rule filing proposes to eliminate
definitions of each particular spread strategy (e.g., butterfly,
condor, iron butterfly, iron condor, etc.), with one exception.
    The one exception would be ``Box Spreads.'' A definition for ``Box
Spread'' would be retained because loan value is permitted under
Exchange margin rules for box spreads. Box spreads are the only type of
spread that is eligible for loan value. They, therefore, need to be
specially identified in the rules.
    Additionally, the proposed rule changes would automatically enable
variations not currently recognized in Exchange margin rules (because
only a limited number of specific spread strategies are defined) to
receive spread margin treatment.
    A new definition of a spread is proposed as Rule 12.3(a)(5). The
key to the definition is that it designates a spread as being an
equivalent long and short position in different call option series and/
or equivalent long and short positions in different put option series,
or a combination thereof.\17\ With respect to equivalency of long and
short positions, the definition further requires that the long and
short positions be equal in terms of the aggregate value of the
underlying security or instrument covered by each leg. The aggregate
value equivalency is included so that it is clear that a spread
composed of one standard option contract and one reduced value option
contract covering the same underlying security or instrument would be
permissible. For example, if reduced value options, equal to 1/10th the
value of a standard option contract are trading, a spread consisting of
10 reduced value contracts vs. one standard contract would be
permissible.\18\ As with spreads under the current rule, the proposed
rule further requires that the short option(s) expire after, or at the
same time as, the long option(s). Additionally, under the proposed rule
definition, all options in a spread must have the same exercise style
(American or European) and either be composed of all listed options or
all over-the-counter (OTC) options. Spreads that do not conform to the
definition would be ineligible for spread margin treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ An option series means particular exercise price and
expiration date with respect to a put or call option.
    \18\ Currently, spreads consisting of standard contracts and
reduced value contracts are permitted by the rules, although the
current rule does not go into detail to require equivalent aggregate
underlying value between the long and short legs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendments to CBOE Rule 12.3(c)(5)(C)(4) are proposed to implement
language specifying how a margin requirement is to be computed for any
spread that meets the definition, and limit eligibility for spread
margin treatment to spreads that meet the definition. The computational
method would require that the intrinsic value of each option series
contained in a spread be calculated for assumed prices of the
underlying security or instrument. The exercise prices of the option
series contained in the spread would be required to be used as the
assumed prices of the underlying security or instrument. For each
assumed price of the underlying, the intrinsic values would be netted.
The greatest loss from among the netted intrinsic values would be the
spread margin requirement. As an example, consider the following
spread:

Long 1 XYZ May2011 50 put
Short 1 XYZ May2011 60 put
Short 1 XYZ May2011 65 call
Long 1 XYZ May2011 70 call

    This spread is a variation of an iron condor spread. It consists of
a put spread and a call spread, with all options covering the same
underlying security or instrument. There are an equal number of
contracts long and short in both the put spread and call spread. The
short options expire with or after the long options (with, in this
case). It is assumed that all options are of the same exercise style
(American or European). This spread would, therefore, be eligible for
the spread margin requirement computation in this proposed rule
amendment.
    Note that in this example, the interval between the exercise prices
in the put spread is greater than the interval in the call spread. In a
basic iron condor spread, these intervals are equal. This particular
configuration is not recognized under current Exchange margin rules.
Therefore the component put spread and call spread must be viewed as
separate, unrelated strategies for margin purposes. Under current
Exchange margin rules, there is a $1,000 margin requirement on the put
spread and $500 margin requirement on the call spread. However, there
are offsetting properties between the two spreads, and, if viewed
collectively, a total margin requirement of $1,500 is not necessary.
Using the proposed computational methodology, a margin requirement
would be calculated as follows:

          Intrinsic Values for Assumed Prices of the Underlying
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Spread                  $50        $60      $65        $70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long 1 XYZ May2011 50 put...            0         0        0          0
Short 1 XYZ May2011 60 put..      $(1,000)        0        0          0
Short 1 XYZ May2011 65 call.            0         0        0      $(500)
Long 1 XYZ May2011 70 call..            0         0        0          0
                             -------------------------------------------
    Net intrinsic values....      $(1,000)        0        0      $(500)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The greatest loss from among the netted intrinsic values is
$1,000.\19\ Under the proposed rule amendments, this would be the
margin requirement. This spread margin requirement is $500 less than
that required under current Exchange margin rules. Note that under both
the current and proposed rules, any net debit incurred when
establishing the spread is required to be paid for in full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Again, depending on the type of spread strategy, there may
be no loss among the netted intrinsic values, in which case there
would be no margin requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It can be intuitively shown that the put spread and call spread in
the example do not have $1,500 of risk when viewed collectively. If the
price of the underlying is at or above $60, the put spread would have
no intrinsic value. At or below $65, the call spread would have no
intrinsic value. Thus, both spreads would never be at risk at any given
price of the underlying. Therefore, margin need be required on only one
of the spreads--the one with the highest risk. In this example, the put
spread has the highest risk ($1,000), and that is the risk (and margin
requirement)

that would be rendered by the proposed computational methodology.
    In summary, the proposed rule amendments would enable the Exchange,
for margin purposes, to accommodate the many types of spread strategies
utilized in the industry today in a fair and efficient manner.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \20\ of the Act and the rules and regulations under
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5).\21\ Because this rule filing proposes a single, universal
definition of a spread and one spread margin requirement that consists
of a universal margin requirement computation methodology, it promotes
just and equitable principles of trade and fosters cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities. By adding clarity and consistency to margin requirements,
it also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-043 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-043. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-043 and should be
submitted on or before June 28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13763 Filed 6-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30971-30973]
[DOCID:fr31my06-149]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53853; File No. SR-Amex-2006-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Elimination of
the Prohibition on Computer Generated Orders

May 23, 2006.
    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 May 9, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by Amex. On May 11, 2006, Amex
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, from interested persons, and is approving the proposal on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 supersedes and replaces the original rule
filing in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate Amex Rules 934(b) and 934-
ANTE(b) relating to the prohibition of computer generated orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site (http://www.amex.com), at the Amex's Office of the Secretary, and

at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes that the amendment to the Amex Rules pursuant
to this proposal be effective on May 8, 2006.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the prohibition on computer
generated orders set forth in Amex Rules 934(b) and 934-ANTE(b).
Originally, Amex Rules 934(b) and 934-ANTE(b) were adopted to protect
registered options traders (``ROTs'') because, at the time, allowing
electronic entry directly into the Exchange's order routing system
could give customers and broker-dealers with order-generating systems a
significant advantage over Amex ROTs. Since the adoption of Amex Rules
934(b) and 934-ANTE(b), the Exchange

has implemented ANTE as well as other electronic trading enhancements
minimizing the concerns raised by the rules. For example, ANTE permits
specialists and ROTs to submit proprietary quotes electronically,\4\
which reduces the risk of multiple executions of orders delivered in
rapid succession before the specialist or ROT is able to revise its
quotation. In addition, the Exchange recently received Commission
approval for an ANTE enhancement known as the ``Quote Risk Manager.''
The Quote Risk Manager is a risk management tool allowing specialists
and ROTs to automatically adjust their quotes if a certain number of
trades are executed within a certain period of time.\5\ Therefore,
specialists and ROTs now have the ability to manage their exposure more
quickly and efficiently, thereby obviating the need for both Amex Rules
934(b) and 934-ANTE(b). The Exchange also believes that the removal of
the prohibition on computer generated orders should enhance access to
the Exchange and therefore provide additional liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49747 (May 20,
2004), 69 FR 30344 (May 27, 2004) (SR-Amex-2003-89).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53148 (January 19,
2006), 71 FR 4386 (January 26, 2006) (SR-Amex-2005-131).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the provisions of section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in
general, and with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest;
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority
conferred by the Act matters not related to the purpose of the Act or
the administration of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as
amended, will impose any burden on competition.

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

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

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Amex-2006-46 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-46. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Amex-2006-46 and should be submitted on or before June
21, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires that the rules of an
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest;
and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers brokers, or dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority
conferred by the Act matters not related to the purposes of the Act or
the administration of the Exchange. Specifically, the Commission
believes that the proposal is designed to permit increased access to
the Exchange, and therefore should help provide additional liquidity
for orders executed on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ the Commission may not
approve any proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the
date of publication of the notice of filing thereof, unless the
Commission finds good cause for so doing. The Commission hereby finds
good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to
the thirtieth day after publishing notice of filing thereof in the
Federal Register. The Commission does not believe that the proposal
would significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest, and would not impose any significant burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that it has recently approved the deletion of
the

Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') Rule 6.8A\11\ and the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange (``Phlx'') Rule 1080(i).\12\ Both of these
rules had prohibited the entry of electronically generated orders. The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, raises
no new regulatory issues and that a full notice and comment period is
not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51030 (January 12,
2005), 70 FR 3404 (January 24, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-91).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48648 (October 16,
2003), 68 FR 60762 (October 23, 2003) (SR-Phlx-2003-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds good cause to
accelerate approval of the proposed rule change, as amended, pursuant
to section 19(b)(2) of the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2006-46), as amended, is hereby
approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8321 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49842-49843]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-1059]

Towing Safety Advisory Committee; December 2017 Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Towing Safety Advisory Committee and its Subcommittees
will meet in New Orleans, Louisiana to review and discuss
recommendations from its Subcommittees and to receive briefs on items
listed in the agenda under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All meetings will
be open to the public.

DATES:
    Meetings. The Subcommittees of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee
will

meet on Tuesday, December 5, 2017 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to conduct
working group sessions. The full Committee will meet on Wednesday,
December 6, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. These meetings may end early if
the Committee has completed its business, or the meetings may be
extended based on the number of public comments.
    Comments and supporting documentation. Submit your comments no
later than November 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at the Omni Riverfront Hotel, 701
Convention Center Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130; https://www.omnihotels.com/hotels/new-orleans-riverfront.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
as soon as possible.
    Written comments must be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical
difficulties with comment submission, contact the individuals listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the meetings, but if you want Committee members to
review your comment before the meetings, please submit your comments no
later than November 21, 2017. We are particularly interested in
comments on the issues in the ``Agenda'' section below. You must
include ``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number USCG-
2016-1059. Comments received will be posted without alteration at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. You may review the Privacy Act and Security Notice for the
Federal Docket Management System at https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Docket Search: For access to the docket or to read documents or
comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
insert USCG-2016-1059 in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on
the item you wish to view.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Jose Perez, Designated
Federal Officer of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee, Commandant
(CG-OES-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE.,
Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax 202-
372-8382 or email [email protected], or Mr. Kenneth Doyle,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is in compliance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code
Appendix. The Towing Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and
recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters
relating to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and
towing safety.

Agenda of Meetings

    On December 5 and 6, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. the Towing Safety
Advisory Committee and its subcommittees will meet to review, discuss,
deliberate, and formulate recommendations, as appropriate, on the
following:

(1) Current Subcommittees

a. Articulated Tug and Barge Operations and Manning (Task 15-02)
b. Subchapter M Implementation (Task 16-01)
c. Inland Firefighting (Task 16-02)
d. Towing Liquefied Natural Gas Barges (Task 16-03)
e. Regulatory Reform (Task 17-01)

(2) Proposed New Subcommittee and Task

a. Load Line Exemption for River Barges on Lakes Erie and Ontario (Task
17-02)

    A copy of all meeting documentation, including any draft final
reports, will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/ports-and-waterways/safety-advisory-committees/tsac/meetings-minutes no later
than November 28, 2017. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Kenneth
Doyle as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    Public comments or questions will be taken throughout the meeting
as the committee discusses the issues and prior to deliberations and
voting. There will also be a public comment period at the end of the
meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes.
Please note that the public comment period may end before the period
allotted, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above to register
as a speaker.

    Dated: 23 October 2017.
Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2017-23382 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5597-5598]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01867]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74150; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-39)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Options on Shares of the Market
Vectors ETFs

January 27, 2015.
    On July 28, 2014, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
options on shares of the Market Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF, Market
Vectors Indonesia Index ETF, Market Vectors Poland ETF, and Market
Vectors Russia ETF (collectively ``Market Vectors ETFs''). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August
12, 2014.\3\ On September 25, 2014, the Commission instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\4\ The Commission received a letter from MIAX on the
proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72777 (August 6,
2014), 79 FR 47165 (SR-MIAX-2014-39) (``Market Vectors ETFs
Proposal'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73212 (September 25,
2014), 79 FR 59332 (October 1, 2014).
    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Brian O'Neill, Vice President and Senior Counsel, MIAX, dated
October 22, 2014 (providing comment on SR-MIAX-2014-30 and SR-MIAX-
2014-39) (``MIAX Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. In this
case, the proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in
the Federal

Register on August 12, 2014. February 8, 2015, is 180 days from that
date, and April 9, 2015, is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to evaluate the proposed
rule change and whether it is consistent with the Act.\7\ The proposed
rule change would allow the Exchange to list for trading on the
Exchange options on shares of the Market Vectors ETFs without
satisfying the Exchange's listing standards, which require, in part,
that the component securities of an index or portfolio of securities on
which the Exchange Traded Fund Shares are based for which the primary
market is in any one country that is not subject to a comprehensive
surveillance sharing agreement do not represent 20% or more of the
weight of the index.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commission notes that MIAX also submitted a similar
proposed rule change to list and trade options on shares of certain
iShares ETFs. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72492 (June
27, 2014), 79 FR 38099 (July 3, 2014) (MIAX-2014-30). The Commission
similarly designated a longer period for Commission action on
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove that
proposed rule change as well. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 73856 (December 17, 2014), 79 FR 77075 (December 23, 2014).
    \8\ See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(B). The Exchange represents that
each of the Market Vectors ETFs are comprised of component
securities for which the primary market is a single foreign market,
and that, for each ETF, MIAX does not have a CSSA with its foreign
counterpart in the applicable foreign market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ designates April 9, 2015, as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-MIAX-2014-39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01867 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 53464]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC19-1-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FRC-732); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-732, (Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs:
Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity Markets).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due December 24,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC19-1-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at [email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-732, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs: Long-Term
Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity Markets.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0245.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-732 information
collection requirement with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: 18 CFR part 42 provides the reporting requirements of
FERC-732 as they pertain to long-term transmission rights. To implement
section 1233 \1\ of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), \2\ the
Commission requires each transmission organization that is a public
utility with one or more organized electricity markets to make
available long-term firm transmission rights that satisfy each of the
Commission's guidelines.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824.
    \2\ 6 U.S.C. 824Q.
    \3\ 18 CFR 42.1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FERC-732 regulations require that transmission organizations
(that are public utilities with one or more organized electricity
markets) choose one of two ways to file:
     File tariff sheets making long-term firm transmission
rights available that are consistent with each of the guidelines
established by FERC.
     File an explanation describing how their existing tariffs
already provide long-term firm transmission rights that are consistent
with the guidelines.

Additionally, the Commission requires each transmission organization to
make its transmission planning and expansion procedures and plans
available to the public.

    FERC-732 enables the Commission to exercise its wholesale electric
rate and electric power transmission oversight and enforcement
responsibilities in accordance with the FPA, the Department of Energy
Organization Act (DOE Act), and EPAct 2005.
    Type of Respondents: Public utility with one or more organized
electricity markets.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \4\ The Commission estimates the total
burden and cost \5\ for this information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \5\ FERC staff estimates that industry costs for salary plus
benefits are similar to Commission costs. The cost figure is the
FY2018 FERC average annual salary plus benefits ($164,820/year or
$79/hour).

   FERC-732, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs--Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity
                                                     Markets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                   Number of     Annual number   Total number    burden hours &      Cost per
                                  respondents    of responses    of responses     total annual    respondent ($)
                                                per respondent                        cost
                                           (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (3) * (4) * (5).       (5) / (1)
                                                                           (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public utility with one or                   1               1               1  1,180 hrs.;              $93,220
 more organized electricity                                                      $93,220.
 markets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: October 17, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23112 Filed 10-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31318-31319]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14581-000]

Turlock Irrigation District Modesto Irrigation District; Notice
of Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing
Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping
Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of PAD Filing and Commencing Pre-Filing
Process for Application for an Original License.
    b. Project No.: 14581-000.
    c. Dated Filed: March 24, 2014.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a letter filed March 24, 2014, the Districts indicated
that they were no longer interested in pursuing the Traditional
Licensing Process. Therefore, March 24, 2014 was established as the
pre-filing process start date for the Integrated Licensing Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Submitted By: Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation
District.
    e. Name of Project: La Grange Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The La Grange Project facilities are located on the
Tuolomne River in Tuolomne County, California. Portions of the Don
Pedro Project occupy lands of the Bureau of Land Management Sierra
Resource Management Unit.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Steven Boyd, Director of Water
Resources, Turlock Irrigation District, P.O. Box 949, Turlock,
California 95381,<PHONE_NUMBER> and Greg Dias, Project Manager, Modesto
Irrigation District, P.O. Box 4060, Modesto, California 95352, 209-526-
7566.
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402 and (b) the California State
Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National
Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating the Turlock Irrigation
District and Modesto Irrigation District as the Commission's non-
federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant
to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District
filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the
Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(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 at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
Documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
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. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the
project name (La Grange Hydroelectric Project) and number (P-14581-
000), and bear the appropriate heading: ``Comments on Pre-Application
Document,'' ``Study Requests,'' ``Comments on Scoping Document 1,''
``Request for Cooperating Agency Status,'' or ``Communications to and
from Commission Staff.'' Any individual or entity interested in
submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency
requesting cooperating status must do so by July 22, 2014.
    p. Our current intent is to prepare an Environmental Assessment
(EA). This meeting will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements.

Scoping Meetings and Environmental Site Review

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date and Time: Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 10:00 a.m. (PST)
    Location: CSU-Stanislaus, University Student Union-Events Center,
801 W. Monte Vista, Turlock, California 95382.

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date and Time: Wednesday, June 18, 2014, 7:00 p.m. (PST)
    Location: Double Tree Hotel-Modesto, Ballroom 4, 1150 Ninth Street,
Modesto, California 95354

Environmental Site Review

    Date and Time: Thursday, June 19, 2014, 10:00 a.m. (PST)
    Location: meet at the La Grange Rodeo Grounds, 4999 State Hwy. 132,
La Grange, CA, 95329.
    Please notify Jim Hastreiter at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by June 2, 2014, if you plan to attend the
site visit.
    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's and Turlock Irrigation District and
Modesto Irrigation District mailing lists. Copies of SD1 will be
available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions
for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written
comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a
revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues,
identified through the scoping process.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n. of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public record of the project.

    Dated: May 23, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12642 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P