[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1962-1963]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00244]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2020-0204; FRL-10018-83-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (EPA ICR Number
2522.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0720), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through February 28, 2021. Public comments were
previously requested, via the Federal Register, on May 12, 2020 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may
neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 10,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2020-0204, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection 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: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of municipal solid waste landfills
are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements
for the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) and the
applicable standards in 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf. This includes
submitting initial notifications, performance tests and periodic
reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance
with these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Existing municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987 and commenced

either construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before July
17, 2014.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60
subpart Cf).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,912 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, annually.
    Total estimated burden: 634,000 hours (per year) for both
privately-owned and publicly-owned municipal solid waste landfills,
with an additional 2,100 hours for State and local agencies
administering this rule. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $45,600,000 (per year) for both privately-
owned and publicly-owned municipal solid waste landfills, which
includes $2,760,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation &
maintenance costs. This overall sum also includes $135,000 (per year)
for State and local agencies-controlled landfills.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. The decrease in burden is due to changes in several
areas. The number of respondents has been adjusted to reflects the
lower expected number of landfills controlling between years 2022
through 2024 based on projected emissions, as well as the number of
landfills subject between years 2022 and 2024, based on waste disposal
quantities which increase over time at active landfills, and assuming
that in these years landfills will be controlling under the more
stringent 34 Mg/yr requirements. The estimates also subtract out
landfills expected to modify during this time period and become subject
to the MSW landfill NSPS instead (OMB Control Number 2060-0697). This
ICR therefore reflects an increase in the total number of respondents
subject to the rule, but a smaller number of controlling landfills
subject to monitoring and testing requirements.
    This ICR also reflects that some landfills subject to EPA approved
state plans implementing Subpart Cf have completed their initial
implementation activities to comply with the rule. Therefore, capital/
startup costs (new equipment and testing) have decreased. O&M costs
have also decreased from the previous ICR due to a decrease in the
number of landfills required to control emissions and perform
monitoring.
    The labor burden has also decreased in this ICR as most landfills
have completed their initial compliance requirements, such as testing,
submitting design capacity reports, submitting collection and control
system design plans. Additionally, this ICR adjusts the burden to
remove requirements for certain sources (e.g., legacy controllers) that
would have submitted certain one-time reports under other MSW Landfill
regulations, and are not required to resubmit reports under Subpart Cf.
This ICR also adjusts the burden for landfills to familiarize
themselves with the new rule requirements to reflect the initial burden
for reviewing the Federal plan or State plans, as they are implemented,
and a lower recurring burden for re-familiarizing with the rule
requirements after the first year.
    This ICR also adjusts the number of respondents subject to the
requirements of subpart Cf which are implemented under State plans and
a Federal plan to incorporate the burden associated with the Federal
plan. The Federal plan is currently pending but expected to be
finalized at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO. As of August 18, 2020, EPA
data indicates that 8 State and local agencies enforce the State plans
and two other state agencies are expected to have their plans effective
by 2022. The remainder of these landfills will be covered by a federal
plan once it becomes effective.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-00244 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 90 (Friday, May 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27410-27411]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09866]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1256-003; ER09-1256-005; ER12-2708-004; ER12-
2708-005; ER12-2708-007.
    Applicants: Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC.
    Description: Accounting Compliance Filing and Refund Report of
Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5531.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1906-002; ER10-1532-005; ER10-1541-006; ER10-
1642-007; ER10-1767-005; ER13-2349-004; ER13-2350-004; ER16-221-003;
ER17-1757-003; ER18-1907-002.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy
Mississippi, LLC, Entergy New Orleans, LLC, Entergy Texas, Inc.,
Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC, Entergy Power, LLC, EWO Marketing, LLC,
EAM Nelson Holding, LLC, RS Cogen, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Non-Material Change in Status of the
Entergy Central MBR Utilities.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5499.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-938-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2020-05-01_Deficiency Response
regarding SPP-JOA Affected Systems to be effective 4/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5350.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-941-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency Response--Enhance and
Clarify Affected Systems Coordination to be effective 4/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5303.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1203-000.
    Applicants: Rock Creek Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Rock Creek Wind Project, LLC Supplement
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1728-000.
    Applicants: Borrego Solar Systems, Inc.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver of Borrego Solar Systems,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200430-5464.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1751-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Request for Waiver of OATT Provisions, et al. of El
Paso Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5342.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1752-000.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver for Extension of Time to
File Annual Formula Rate Update of The Empire District Electric
Company.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5364.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1753-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Waiver of Tariff Provisions of Duke
Energy Progress, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5477.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1754-000, ES20-40-000.
    Applicants: Assembly Solar, LLC.
    Description: Request for Waivers and Blanket Authorization to Issue
Securities and Assume Liabilities of Assembly Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5478.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1755-000.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Power Corporation.
    Description: Request for Limited Tariff Waiver, et al. of Green
Mountain Power Corporation
    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5479.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1757-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Service Agreement No. 369--LCWCD
Cancellation to be effective 7/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200504-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1758-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Service Agreement No. 371--TOUA
Cancellation to be effective 7/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200504-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1759-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA & ICSA, SA
Nos. 4492 & 4494; Queue No. AA2-060 (consent/amend) to be effective 6/
30/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200504-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1760-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA & ICSA, SA
Nos. 4501 & 4502; Queue No. AA2-061 (consent/amend) to be effective 7/
1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200504-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1761-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-05-04 Turlock EIM
Entity Agreement to be effective 7/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200504-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1762-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Waiver of Tariff Provisions of Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20200501-5532.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1763-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment of WMPA, SA No.
5480, Queue No. AD2-002 (consent) to be effective 8/5/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200504-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1764-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OA Schedule 2
re Fuel Cost Policy to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200504-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/20.

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

    Dated: May 4, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09866 Filed 5-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41125-41128]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16227]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92492; File No. SR-ICEEU-2021-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICE Clear Europe
Articles of Association

July 26, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On May 25, 2021, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend
its Articles of Association (the ``Articles''). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 11,
2021.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed
rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is
approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICE Clear
Europe Articles of Association, Exchange Act Release No. 92120 (June
7, 2021); 86 FR 31348 (June 11, 2021) (SR-ICEEU-2021-013)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    As discussed further below, the proposed rule change would amend
the Articles to: (i) Update definitions related to the ICE Clear Europe
Board of Directors (the ``Board'') and references to Board committees;
(ii) modify the composition and structure of the Board and Board
committees; (iii) revise the provisions regarding Super-Quorum Matters;
(iv) add an article regarding presence at a Board meeting and amend an
article related to expenses for directors; and (v) adopt gender-neutral
language and make non-substantive typographical edits throughout the
Articles.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The description that follows is excerpted from the Notice,
86 FR at 31348. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have
the meanings assigned to them in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules
or the Articles, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Definitions Related to the Board and Board Committees

    Beginning in the defined terms found in Article 3, the proposed
rule change would change the name of the Risk Committee to Product Risk
Committee and update references to this committee throughout the
Articles accordingly. This change would reflect the correct current
name and function of this committee (and distinguish the Product Risk
Committee from other existing risk committees). Further, the proposed
rule change would delete from the definition of Product Risk Committee
the statement that it is composed of the directors, to reflect that the
committee is comprised of directors as well as representatives of
Clearing Members.
    The proposed rule change would next delete definitions of, and
references to, Board committees other than the Product Risk Committee.
The proposed rule change would delete from article 3 \5\ the
definitions of Audit Committee, Board Risk Committee, Compensation
Committee, and Nomination Committee. In addition, the proposed rule
change would also amend the defined term Committees. Currently that
term is defined to mean certain committees of the Board (Audit
Committee, Board Risk Committee, etc.). The proposed rule change would
revise this definition to mean any committee constituted by the Board
under the Articles. Although ICE Clear Europe is not proposing to
change its current committee structure at this time, it does not
believe the committees need to be defined in the Articles. Given that
the Board is authorized to create, modify, or dissolve committees as it
determines to be appropriate, the amendments would facilitate future
changes to the committee structure by the Board without need to amend
the Articles.\6\ The proposed rule change would retain the definition
of, and references to, the Product Risk Committee, however, because
that Committee plays a specific role relating to the CDS Director, as
discussed below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ References herein to the numbering of particular articles
will be to the articles as amended.
    \6\ Notice, 86 FR at 31348.
    \7\ Notice, 86 FR at 31348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Composition and Structure of the Board and Board Committees

    The proposed rule change also would make certain revisions to the
composition of the Board and Board committees. Currently, the Articles
provide that the number of directors shall be not less than six and not
more

than twelve, with at least two and not more than four Independent
Directors. The proposed rule change would not alter the size of Board;
it would retain the not less than six and not more than twelve
numerical requirement. The proposed rule change would provide, however,
that at least one third of directors should be Independent Directors,
replacing the current requirement of at least two and not more than
four. Under a minimum Board size of six, this would result in two
Independent Directors, and under a maximum Board size of twelve, this
would result in four Independent Directors. Thus, this proposed change
would in effect keep the number of independent directors the same,
while providing flexibility and clarifying the language.
    Relatedly, the proposed rule change would update the definition of
Independent Director. Independent Director is currently defined as a
person who is independent of the Company and of the Clearing House and
who is appointed as a non-executive director of the Company. The
proposed rule change would modify this definition to mean a person who
meets the independence criteria for a director, as defined under
relevant applicable legislation and who is appointed as a non-executive
director.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Specifically, ICE Clear Europe represented such legislation
would include the definition of ``independent member'' pursuant to
Article 2(28) of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation
(EMIR), Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central
counterparties and trade repositories as incorporated into UK law
under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (UK EMIR). Notice, 86
FR at 31349, n.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the proposed rule change would clarify the definition of
CDS Director. A CDS Director is defined as a person, reasonably
acceptable to the Board and approved by the Bank of England, with
appropriate experience of credit derivatives and the credit default
swaps marketplace, and further experience including, but not limited
to, corporate governance, management oversight, and financial markets,
who is appointed by the Board as a non-executive director of the
Company and who has been nominated by the Product Risk Committee with
responsibility for CDS. The proposed rule change would retain this
definition but would add a sentence to clarify that the CDS Director
may also meet the criteria required of an Independent Director but, for
the avoidance of doubt, would continue to be classified only as a CDS
Director. Thus, even if the CDS Director meets the criteria required of
an Independent Director, they will be classified only as a CDS Director
and not as an Independent Director.
    The proposed rule change would also modify the Board composition
requirement with respect to CDS Directors. Currently, the Articles
require that two CDS Directors be appointed to serve on the Board. The
proposed rule change would modify this provision to require only that
one CDS Director serve on the Board. The proposed rule change also
would amend the provisions relating to the appointment and retirement
of CDS Directors to reflect this change. ICE Clear Europe represented
that the proposed reduction to the required number of CDS Directors
follows the retirement of one of the previous CDS Directors and that it
was unnecessary to have two CDS Directors because Clearing Members
would continue to be represented through the remaining CDS Director and
the CDS Product Risk Committee.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Notice, 86 FR at 31349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Super-Quorum Matters

    Super-Quorum Matters are certain matters before the Board that are
subject to additional requirements regarding the presence of a CDS
Director at the meeting where those matters are considered. Article 3
currently defines Super-Quorum Matters as matters regarding those
aspects of the Rules that relate to: CDS Clearing Members; CDS
contracts; the structure, size, or application of the CDS guaranty
fund; the methodology for calculating a CDS Clearing Member's CDS
guaranty fund contribution or the components thereof; permitted cover
for CDS guaranty fund contributions; powers of assessment in respect of
CDS Clearing Members; the time period for, or means by which, CDS
margin is returned to a CDS Clearing Member; the methodology for
determining the rate of return on the CDS guaranty fund; the use, re-
hypothecation or investment of the CDS guaranty fund; the terms of
reference for the CDS Risk Committee; and, the subject and content of
the Board Resolution relating to those matters. The proposed rule
change would retain this definition, with some additional
clarifications. Specifically, the proposed rule change would clarify
that the definition includes those aspects of the Rules that relate to
``criteria for CDS Clearing Membership'' instead of just ``CDS Clearing
Members.'' Because seemingly any aspect of the Rules could relate to
CDS Clearing Members, including those aspects of the rules that are
already specifically covered in the definition of Super-Quorum Matters,
this specific change would narrow and clarify this aspect of the
definition. Moreover, clarifying that the definition covers those
aspects of the Rules that relate to criteria for CDS Clearing
Membership would ensure that those provisions of the Rules are also
covered by the definition. Finally, the remaining portions of the
definition of the Super-Quorum Matters would continue to broadly cover
other aspects of the Rule that could relate to CDS Clearing Members,
including any aspects of the rules relating to CDS contracts.
    In addition, the proposed rule change would update a reference to
the terms of reference for the CDS Risk Committee to the terms of
reference for the Product Risk Committee, in furtherance of the change
discussed above. The proposed rule change would also resolve a drafting
ambiguity by removing ``the subject and content of the Board
Resolution'' as a Super-Quorum Matter as, by current practice, not all
Board resolutions are Super-Quorum Matters.
    The proposed rule change next would amend the Articles to clarify
the operation of the super-quorum requirement for Super-Quorum Matters,
and to reflect the requirement to have one CDS Director present. The
Articles currently require that, in relation to Super-Quorum Matters, a
super-quorum is needed for the transaction of business, which means a
majority of the directors serving on the Board at that time including
at least one CDS Director. The proposed rule change would modify this
provision to make the term ``Super-Quorum'' a defined term, meaning a
majority of the directors serving on the Board at that time and, for as
long as a CDS Director has been nominated by the Product Risk Committee
with responsibility for CDS and appointed by the Board, the Super-
Quorum must include a CDS Director who must be present at the meeting.
Because under the Articles as revised there will only be one CDS
Director, the proposed rule change would add this language to clarify
that where a CDS Director has retired or resigned and a new CDS
Director has not yet been nominated by the Product Risk Committee and
appointed by the Board, the Board could still act on a Super-Quorum
Matter. Thus, as in the current Articles, under the proposed rule
change a Super-Quorum would include a CDS Director.
    The proposed rule change would further clarify that while the CDS
Director must be present at a meeting requiring a Super-Quorum, the CDS
Director need not vote in favor of the resolution. The Articles do not
currently require that the CDS Director vote in favor of the Board
resolution relating to

the Super-Quorum Matter, so this provision would clarify this point.
    Moreover, the Articles currently provide that in relation to Super-
Quorum Matters that need to be resolved in an emergency the quorum
necessary shall be the number equal to a majority of the directors
serving on the Board at that time. Thus, under the current Articles,
the Board could resolve a Super-Quorum Matter at an emergency meeting
without a CDS Director present. The proposed rule change would retain
this provision, but would clarify that the ICE Clear Europe President
or their delegate would deem whether there is an emergency. The
proposed rule change would also add language to would clarify that, for
the avoidance of doubt, the presence of a CDS Director is not necessary
at the emergency meeting, as under the current Articles.
    Finally, the Articles currently provide that where no CDS Directors
are present at a meeting requiring a Super-Quorum, consideration of the
business relating to relevant Super-Quorum Matters shall be adjourned
to a re-convened meeting to be called subject to a minimum of two
Business Days' notice to the Board, at which transaction of business in
relation to the relevant Super-Quorum Matters shall not require a
Super-Quorum and may be transacted by a quorum equal to a majority of
the directors serving on the Board at that time. The proposed rule
change would retain this provision but would clarify that at the
subsequent meeting, a CDS Director need not be present.

D. Presence and Directors' Expenses

    The proposed rule change, through a new article, would provide that
a member shall be deemed present at a general meeting if participating
by telephone or other electronic means and all participating members
can hear each other. Relatedly, the proposed rule change would amend
the Articles to state explicitly that for a quorum to be met for non-
Super-Quorum Matters, the required majority of directors must be
present at the meeting (under the new definition).
    The proposed rule change also would amend the Articles regarding
directors' expenses. The Articles provide that directors may, subject
to the approval of the Board, be paid all travelling, hotel and other
expenses properly incurred by them in connection with their attendance
at meetings of directors or committees of directors or general meetings
or separate meetings of the Company or otherwise in connection with the
discharge of their duties. The proposed rule change would modify this
provision by adding the word ``reasonable'' immediately before
``travelling,'' thus in effect requiring the expenses to be reasonable.
The proposed rule change also would remove the requirement that the
expenses be subject to Board approval. ICE Clear Europe represented
that, instead, the ICE Clear Europe President would approve such
expenses.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Notice, 86 FR at 31349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Gender Neutral Language and Typographical Errors

    Throughout the Articles, the proposed rule change would amend
various provisions to use gender-neutral language. The proposed rule
change also would correct certain non-substantive typographical errors
and update numbering due to the changes discussed above.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\11\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(C)
of the Act,\12\ Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\13\ and Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(2)(i).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICE Clear Europe assure a fair representation of its
shareholders (or members) and participants in the selection of its
directors and administration of its affairs.\15\ The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change, in general, would be consistent
with assuring a fair representation of ICE Clear Europe's shareholders,
members, and participants in the selection of its directors and
administration of its affairs. Although, as discussed in Part II.B
above, one aspect of the proposed rule change would reduce the minimum
representation of CDS Directors on the Board of Directors from two to
one, the proposed rule change would not reduce any of the authority or
responsibility of the remaining CDS Director. Currently under the
Articles the presence of at least one CDS Director is required at Board
meetings relating to Super-Quorum Matters, and no provision explicitly
requires that a CDS Director vote in favor of Board resolutions
relating to Super-Quorum Matters. Similarly under the proposed rule
change, the presence of the CDS Director is required at Board meetings
relating to Super-Quorum Matters, but the CDS Director need not vote in
favor of a Board resolution relating to a Super-Quorum Matter for the
resolution to pass. Moreover, the current provisions relating to the
conduct of emergency meetings and re-convened meetings relating to
Super-Quorum matters without a CDS Director present are largely the
same under the Articles as proposed to be amended, with some additional
clarifications. Finally, the Commission notes ICE Clear Europe's
representation that Clearing Members would continue to be represented
through the CDS Product Risk Committee, which, other than the Chair, is
composed entirely of representatives of Clearing Members.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(C).
    \16\ Notice, 86 FR at 31349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking these factors together, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICE Clear Europe be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for
which it is responsible.\18\ As discussed in more detail below, the
Commission generally believes that the changes discussed above should
facilitate the efficient operation of the clearing house and a clear
and transparent governance structure, which would promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions and assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds. Therefore, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the changes discussed in Part II.A above
would ensure that the Articles are consistent with the current
operations of ICE Clear Europe by correcting the name of the

Risk Committee to the Product Risk Committee and amending the
definition of that committee to reflect its current composition.
Moreover, revising the defined term ``Committees'' and removing
references to other Board committees would make the Articles more
flexible by allowing for the addition, modification, or elimination of
Board committees without the need to amend the Articles. The Commission
believes that these changes should improve ICE Clear Europe's ability
to adapt its Board to evolving circumstances and unforeseen areas of
priority.
    Similarly, the Commission believes that the changes discussed in
Part II.B above would clarify the Articles with respect to the
composition of the Board. Specifically, changing the minimum number of
Independent Directors to one third of the Board, from at least two but
not more than four, would in effect result in the same number of
Independent Directors as currently, given that the size of the Board
could still range from six to twelve directors. This change would
clarify and simplify the language of this requirement, however.
Similarly, the Commission believes that revising the definition of an
Independent Director to refer to independence criteria as defined under
applicable legislation would allow this definition to change in
response to changes to relevant legislation, thus furthering the
clarity and flexibility of this definition. The Commission also
believes that clarifying the definition of CDS Director, by adding
language that a CDS Director can also meet the criteria for an
Independent Director, will clarify the Articles by absolving a
potential ambiguity of director classification. Finally, the Commission
believes that changing the required Board representation of CDS
Directors from two to one and revising other provisions to reflect this
change would clarify the number of CDS Directors on the Board without
substantially reducing the representation of Clearing Members.
    The Commission also believes that amending the Articles pertaining
to Super-Quorum Matters as discussed in Part II.C above would clarify
the requirements applicable to Super-Quorum Matters. Specifically, the
Commission believes clarifying the definition of Super-Quorum Matters
would make it easier to determine what matters fall within the category
of Super-Quorum Matters. Similarly, the Commission believes that by
making the term ``Super-Quorum'' a defined term and including, as in
the current Articles, a requirement that a CDS Director be present at a
meeting to achieve a Super-Quorum, the proposed rule change would
clarify these provisions. Finally, the Commission believes the other
changes discussed in Part II.C above would clarify points currently
implied in the Articles: That a CDS Director need not vote in favor of
a resolution during a Super-Quorum Matter; that the President or their
delegate would determine the existence of an emergency as needed for an
emergency meeting; and that a CDS Director need not be present at an
emergency or reconvened Board meeting involving a Super-Quorum Matter.
    Similarly, the Commission believes that the changes to the Articles
concerning the acceptable criteria constituting presence at a Board
meeting, as discussed in Part II.D above, would clarify when a director
is present at a Board meeting, especially when participating by
telephone. Revising the provision regarding directors' expenses
discussed in Part II.D above should would clarify this provision given
that the ICE Clear Europe President, and not the Board, approves such
expenses. Finally, the Commission believes that the changes to the
Articles to reflect gender-neutral language, correct typographical
errors, and renumber the Articles in accord with the above changes to
the Articles would clarify the Articles and eliminate drafting
mistakes.
    The Commission believes that by clarifying and revising the
Articles, the proposed rule change would reduce the possibility for
error in interpreting and applying the Articles, thus improving the
operation of ICE Clear Europe's governance in general and the Board in
particular. The Commission further believes that improved governance
and Board oversight may facilitate the efficient and effective
operations of ICE Clear Europe, including its clearance and settlement
of transactions and safeguarding of securities and funds. Therefore,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change should promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE Clear
Europe's custody and control, consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that are
clear and transparent.\21\ As discussed above, the Commission believes
that the proposed rule change would clarify the Articles and the
operation of the Board pursuant to the Articles. For example, by
establishing when a director is present at a Board meeting, including
when participating by telephone, the Commission believes the proposed
rule change would clarify when a director is present and counted for
purposes of establishing a quorum or Super-Quorum. Moreover, a number
of changes discussed in Part II.C above would clarify points currently
implied in the Articles: That the CDS Director need not vote in favor
of the Board resolution relating to the Super-Quorum Matter; that the
President would determine the existence of an emergency as needed for
an emergency meeting; and that a CDS Director need not be present at an
emergency or reconvened Board meeting. Thus, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\23\ 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\24\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(C).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\26\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2021-013), be, and hereby
is, approved.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \27\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16227 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29807-29809]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6668; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-149-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report that on some airplanes, during the
paint removal process for repainting the airplane, the basic corrosion
protection (anodizing and primer) coating was sanded down to bare metal
on the aluminum skin panels and the bare metal might not have been
treated correctly for corrosion prevention. This proposed AD would
require an inspection of structural components of the airplane for any
damaged protective coating; inspections of those areas for pitting
corrosion, if necessary; a thickness measurement to determine if there
is reduced skin thickness, if necessary; and repair, if necessary. We
are proposing this AD to detect and correct damaged protective
coatings. This condition could result in pitting corrosion damage; and
reduced metal thickness, which could result in reduced static and
fatigue strength of the airplane's structural parts.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Saab AB,
Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden; telephone +46 13
18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.saabgroup.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6668; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-6668;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-149-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0160, dated July 9, 2014 (Correction: July
9, 2014) (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    SAAB received evidence that on a number of SAAB 2000 aeroplanes,
during paint removal before repainting, the basic corrosion
protection anodizing and primer were removed. In these cases, the
basic corrosion protection coating was sanded down to bare metal on
the aluminium [aluminum] skin panel in spite of existing
instruction(s) contained in the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) which
prohibit(s) exposing the aluminium bare metal. Due to the fact that
the skin panels are manufactured from aluminium without a protective
covering (unclad), the anodizing and primer is the corner stone of
the aeroplane corrosion protection system. If the anodizing and
primer is removed and the aluminium surface is not correctly
treated, pitting corrosion may occur. In addition, sanding to bare
metal can inadvertently lead to metal removal and subsequently
reduce the static and fatigue strength of the aeroplane structural
parts.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
corrosion damage and/or reduced structural strength of the aeroplane
structure.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, SAAB issued SB 2000-
51-002 to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time [detailed] inspection [for damage] * * * of required
anticorrosion protective coating [e.g., bonding primer], [detailed]
inspection for

pitting corrosion (if necessary) [, a dye penetrant inspection for
pitting corrosion (if necessary)] and measure the skin thickness (if
necessary) [to determine if there is reduced skin thickness] and,
depending on findings, corrective action(s) [e.g., repair].
    This [EASA] AD is re-issued to correct typographical error of
the effective date.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6668.

Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Saab has issued Service Bulletin 2000-51-002, Revision 01, dated
May 23, 2014. This service information describes procedures for an
inspection of structural components of the airplane for any damaged
protective coating; inspections of those areas for pitting corrosion; a
thickness measurement to determine if there is reduced skin thickness;
and repair. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 20 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $13,600, or $1,700
per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 45 work-hours, for a cost of $3,825 per product. We have no
way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
actions. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the parts cost of the follow-on actions
specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate previously held by Saab
AB, Saab Aerosystems): Docket No. FAA-2016-6668; Directorate
Identifier 2014-NM-149-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 27, 2016.

 (b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate
previously held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Model SAAB 2000
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers, except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Those airplanes identified in Table 1 of Saab Service
Bulletin 2000-51-002, Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014, on which an
applicable ``Related Statement'' identified in Table 1 was
accomplished.
    (2) Those airplanes that either have retained the original paint
or have been repainted by Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics.

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Standard
Practices/Structures.

 (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that on some airplanes, during
the paint removal process for repainting the airplane, the basic
corrosion protection (anodizing and primer) coating was sanded down
to bare metal on the aluminum skin panels and the bare metal might
not have been treated correctly for corrosion prevention. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged protective coatings.
This condition could result in pitting corrosion damage; and reduced
metal thickness, which could result in reduced static and fatigue
strength of the airplane's structural parts.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Inspection, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Action

    (1) Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs
first after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection
of the airplane structural parts to detect damaged protective
coating (e.g., bonding primer), in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002,
Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014. If any damaged protective coating
is found, before further flight, do a detailed inspection of the
airplane structural parts to detect pitting corrosion and, if no
pitting corrosion is found, do a dye penetrant inspection of the
airplane structural parts to detect pitting

corrosion and a thickness measurement to determine if there is
reduced skin thickness, as applicable, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002,
Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014.
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, any damage (such as pitting corrosion or damaged primer) or
reduced skin thickness is detected, as defined in Saab Service
Bulletin 2000-51-002, Revision 01, dated May 23, 2014, before
further flight, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA); or Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics' EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA) for a repair method, and do the repair
within the compliance time indicated in those instructions.

 (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Saab Service Bulletin 2000-51-002, dated April
9, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

 (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

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

 (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0160, dated July 9, 2014
(Correction: July 9, 2014), for related information. This MCAI may
be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2016-6668.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab
AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden; telephone
+46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.saabgroup.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 4, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11171 Filed 5-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 37268-37270]
[DOCID:fr28jy09-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60366; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules
6440 and 6540 To Require Members To Create a Contemporaneous Record of
Certain Customer and Order Information

July 22, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``SEA'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Rules 6440 and 6540 to
require members to create a contemporaneous record of certain customer
and order information. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on June 17, 2009.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60085 (June 10, 2009),
74 FR 28741 (June 17, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA has proposed to amend Rules 6440 and 6540 to, among other
things,

require members to create a contemporaneous record of certain customer
and order information demonstrating eligibility for the unsolicited
customer order exception of SEA Rule 15c2-11 when the member is relying
on such exception. SEA Rule 15c2-11 sets forth the information review
and maintenance requirements for broker-dealers that publish quotations
\4\ in a quotation medium \5\ for certain over-the-counter equity
securities (e.g., those quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and Pink
Sheets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ SEA Rule 15c2-11 defines ``quotation'' as any bid or offer
at a specified price with respect to a security, or any indication
of interest by a broker or dealer in receiving bids or offers from
others for a security, or any indication by a broker or dealer that
advertises its general interest in buying or selling a particular
security.
    \5\ ``Quotation medium'' means any ``inter-dealer quotation
system'' or any publication or electronic communications network or
other device that is used by brokers or dealers to make known to
others their interest in transactions in any security, including
offers to buy or sell at a stated price or otherwise, or invitations
of offers to buy or sell. ``Inter-dealer quotation system'' means
any system of general circulation to brokers or dealers that
regularly disseminates the quotations of identified brokers or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, SEA Rule 15c2-11 prohibits a broker-dealer from
publishing, or submitting for publication, a quotation for a covered
OTC equity security unless it has obtained and reviewed current
information about the issuer whose security is the subject of the
quotation that the broker-dealer believes is accurate and obtained from
a reliable source. There are several exceptions to SEA Rule 15c2-11,
including paragraph (f)(2) of the Rule, which excepts quotations that
represent a customer's unsolicited order or indication of interest
(unsolicited customer order exception).
    FINRA Rule 6440 sets forth the standards applicable to member firms
for demonstrating compliance with SEA Rule 15c2-11. FINRA has indicated
that it has found that member firms maintain varying levels of
documentation for demonstrating eligibility for the unsolicited
customer order exception and, in some cases, are unable to produce any
proof that a quote in fact represented a customer's unsolicited order
or indication of interest (``IOI'').
    While a member relying on this or any exception should be able to
proffer evidence of its eligibility for and compliance with the
exception, FINRA believes that providing specific recordkeeping
requirements for demonstrating eligibility for the SEA Rule 15c2-
11(f)(2) exception is appropriate and will promote more uniform record-
keeping and compliance with this exception.
    Specifically, FINRA has proposed that contemporaneous with the
receipt of any unsolicited customer order or IOI, members would be
required to record the following details: The identity of the
associated person who receives the order or IOI directly from the
customer, if applicable; \6\ the identity of the customer; the date and
time the order or IOI was received; and the terms of the order or IOI
that is the subject of the quotation (e.g., security name and symbol,
size, side of the market, the duration (if specified) and, if priced,
the price). To the extent a member is displaying a quote representing
an unsolicited customer order or IOI that was received from another
broker-dealer, the member is still required to create a contemporaneous
record of the identity of the person from whom information regarding
the unsolicited customer order or IOI was received, if applicable; \7\
the date and time the unsolicited customer order or IOI was received by
the member displaying the quotation; and the terms of the order that is
the subject of the quotation.\8\ The member displaying the quotation
may rely on the information provided by the routing firm if the member
has a reasonable basis for believing that the information is valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FINRA stated that in cases where a member is displaying a
quote representing an unsolicited customer order or IOI that was
received electronically, it is understood that there may not be a
``person'' associated with the receipt or submission of such
unsolicited customer order or IOI. Thus, with respect to the
requirement that members record (1) the identity of the associated
person who received the unsolicited customer order or IOI; or (2)
the identity of the person from whom information regarding the
unsolicited customer order or IOI was received where the order or
IOI is received from another broker-dealer, members are only
required to record such information if applicable.
    \7\ See supra note 6.
    \8\ FINRA stated that it is critical that the member receiving
an order be advised of and understand the terms of the order that
are relevant to the exception so that the receiving member may
reasonably and accurately rely on the unsolicited customer order
exception. For example, if the customer order is a ``day'' order,
the receiving member must be advised of that fact so that it can
withdraw the quote upon the expiration of the order. Similarly, to
the extent that the terms of the order change or other significant
information is received by the firm routing the order (e.g., a
``good-till-cancelled'' order is cancelled or there is a change in
the terms of the order), the firm routing such order must promptly
update the member displaying the quote as to the change in the terms
of the order. To the extent the firm routing the order is not a
member, the member should make periodic inquiry as to whether the
terms of the order have changed. Members may not rely on the
unsolicited customer order exception where a displayed quote no
longer accurately represents current unsolicited customer interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA proposed to amend Rule 6540 (Requirements
Applicable to Market Makers). The proposed amendment would delete
footnote 1 under Rule 6540. Footnote 1 sets forth a
summary of exemptive relief granted by the SEC from the requirements of
SEA Rule 15c2-11 (subject to certain conditions). FINRA noted that
because the Commission has granted additional exemptive requests from
the requirements of SEA Rule 15c2-11 that are not included in footnote
1, and believes the Commission may continue to grant such
requests in the future, FINRA has proposed to delete footnote
1 in its entirety and specify in Rule 6540 that members must
demonstrate compliance with, or qualify for an exception or exemption
from, SEA Rule 15c2-11.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ SEA Rule 15c2-11(h) sets forth the SEC's exemptive authority
with respect to the requirements of SEA Rule 15c2-11 and provides
that SEA Rule 15c2-11 shall not prohibit any publication or
submission of any quotation if the SEC, upon written request or upon
its own motion, exempts such quotation either unconditionally or on
specified terms and conditions, as not constituting a fraudulent,
manipulative or deceptive practice comprehended within the purpose
of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules
and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\10\ In particular, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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. The Commission
believes that the proposed amendments to Rules 6440 and 6540 will
protect the public interest by promoting more uniform record-keeping
and compliance with SEA Rule 15c2-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FINRA-2009-030) be
and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17858 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P