[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4565-4567]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02397]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85102; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend the Exchange's Tenth Amended and Restated Bylaws (the
``Exchange Bylaws'') the Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws (the
``Parent Bylaws'') of Its Parent Corporation, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(``Cboe'' or the ``Parent'')

February 11, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 28, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend the Exchange's Tenth Amended and Restated Bylaws (the
``Exchange Bylaws'') the Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws (the
``Parent Bylaws'') of its parent corporation, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(``Cboe'' or the ``Parent''). The text of the proposed amendments to
the Exchange Bylaws is included in Exhibit 5A, and the text of the
proposed amendments to the Parent Bylaws is included in Exhibit 5B.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change amends the Exchange Bylaws to (1) amend
the provision regarding which offices may be held by the same person
and (2) amend the description of the duties of President of the
Exchange. The proposed rule change also amends the Parent Bylaws to (1)
amend the description of the duties of President of the Parent, (2)
amend language relating to the definition of ``director independence,''
and (3) make a non-substantive update to the zip code for the
registered office the Corporation.
Offices Held by Same Person
    Section 5.1(b) of the Exchange Bylaws currently provides that two
or more offices may be held by the same person, except the offices of
Chief Executive Officer and President.\5\ The Exchange proposes to
amend Section 5.1(b) of the Exchange Bylaws to eliminate this
restriction, and thus permit the same person to hold the offices of
Chief Executive Officer and President. This proposal will provide the
Exchange with the flexibility to appoint the person or persons it deems
qualified and appropriate to perform the duties of both Chief Executive
Officer and the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 5.1(b) also prohibits the Chief Executive Officer
and President from also being the Secretary or Assistant Secretary,
which prohibition the proposal does not substantively amend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of President
    Section 5.3 of the Parent Bylaws and Section 5.3 of the Exchange
Bylaws each provide that the President of the Parent or Exchange, as
applicable, shall be the chief operating officer of the Parent or
Exchange, as applicable. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 5.3 of
each of the Parent Bylaws and Section 5.3 of the Exchange Bylaws to
provide that the President of the Parent or Exchange, as applicable,
may be the chief operating officer of the Parent or Exchange, as
applicable. Pursuant to this proposed change, the President of the
Parent or Exchange may also serve as the chief operating officer,\6\
but, rather than requiring that one individual serve in both
capacities, Parent and the Exchange will each have flexibility to
appoint the person or persons it deems qualified and appropriate to
perform the duties of the President and duties of a chief operating
officer. In either case, Parent and the Exchange each will have one or
more persons performing the necessary duties of each role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This is consistent with the provision in each of the Parent
Bylaws and Exchange Bylaws that provide that two or more offices may
be held by the same person, subject to certain exceptions. See
Section 5.1 of the Parent Bylaws and Section 5.1 of the Exchange
Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of Director Independence
    Cboe recently determined to remove from listing its common stock,
par value $0.01 per share (the ``Common Stock''), on the Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') and to designate BZX as the primary listing
venue for Parent's Common Stock, which became effective in September
2018. In connection with the delisting and primary listing venue
designation, the Exchange proposes to update certain corporate
governance documents, including the Parent Bylaws. Particularly, the
Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.3 of the Parent Bylaws to change
the definition of director independence from referencing the listing
standards of the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq to language
referencing the listing standards of each national securities exchange
on which the common stock of Parent is listed.
Registered Office Zip Code
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 1.1 of the Parent Bylaws to
update the zip code of the Parent's registered agent from 19805 to
19801. This change is in accordance with an update from the U.S. Postal
Service.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\8\ which provides that the
Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act and to enforce compliance by the Exchange's Trading
Permit Holders and persons associated with its Trading Permit Holders
with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed changes are not
material and will have a de minimis impact on the governance,
ownership, or operations of the Exchange.
    The proposed rule change to permit the same person to hold the
offices of Chief Executive Officer and President of the Exchange will
enable the Exchange to continue to be organized and have the capacity
to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act, because it will
provide the Exchange with flexibility to appoint the person or persons
it deems qualified and appropriate to perform the duties of both Chief
Executive Officer and the President. The Exchange will continue to have
a Chief Executive Officer and President--the proposed change merely
permits a single person rather than multiple people to hold these
offices. This will ensure continued orderly operation of the Exchange
in a manner the Exchange deems most appropriate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The proposed change also conforms this provision to the
corresponding provision in Parent's Bylaws. See Section 5.1 of
Parent's Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to permit each of Parent and the Exchange
to appoint different persons to serve as President and chief operating
officer of each entity will enable the Exchange to continue to be
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act, because it will provide each entity with flexibility to
appoint the person or persons it deems qualified and appropriate to
perform the duties of President and a chief operating officer. Parent
and the Exchange each will continue to have the necessary duties of
each role performed--the proposed change merely permits multiple people
rather than a single person to perform these duties. This will ensure
continued orderly operation of the Exchange in a manner Parent and the
Exchange deem most appropriate.
    The Exchange believes in light of the delisting of Parent's Common
Stock from Nasdaq, it is appropriate to remove the requirement to
comply with the independence requirements contained in the listing
standards of Nasdaq, as well as the independence requirements contained
in the listing standards of NYSE. The Exchange notes that the
independence requirements of BZX are

substantially similar to the independence requirements contained in the
listing standards of Nasdaq and NYSE.
    The Exchange believes that by ensuring its parent company's
governance documents accurately reflect the correct legal address of
Parent's registered office, the proposed rule change would reduce
potential investor or market participant confusion.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned
solely with updating the Parent Bylaws and Exchange Bylaws to reflect
the changes described above.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, become
operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become operative pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6),\13\ the Commission may designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that proposal may
become operative upon filing. The Exchange states that the proposed
changes relating to the ability of the same person to hold multiple
officer titles and the amended independence requirements are consistent
with other national securities exchanges and will enable the Exchange
to continue to be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry
out the purposes of the Act, including protecting investors and the
public interest. Further, the proposed change of updating the zip code
of the Parent's registered office does not raise any regulatory issues.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest and, therefore, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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-2019-001 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-CBOE-2019-001. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-001 and should be submitted on
or before March 8, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02397 Filed 2-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14605-14607]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07186]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1063; Product Identifier 2018-NM-160-AD; Amendment
39-19606; AD 2019-06-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A330-223, A330-223F, A330-321, A330-322, and A330-323
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking in the
latch beam gussets on a certain thrust reverser (T/R). This AD requires
a one-time special detailed inspection of certain latch beam gussets of
certain T/Rs for cracks, and modifying the latch beam gussets of the T/
Rs, if necessary, as specified in an European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. We are issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 16, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 16,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For the incorporation by reference (IBR) material described
in the ``Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR part 51'' section in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668
Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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-2018-
1063; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-
223, A330-223F, A330-321, A330-322, and A330-323 airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2018 (83 FR 67158).
The NPRM was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking in the latch beam
gussets on a certain T/R. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time
special detailed inspection of certain latch beam gussets of certain T/
Rs for cracks, and modifying the latch beam gussets of the T/Rs, if
necessary, as specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0227,
dated October 22, 2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0227'').
    We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking in the latch
beam gussets on a certain T/R, which, if not detected and corrected,
could lead to crack propagation until part failure and potential
departure of the T/R cascade during T/R operation, which could result
in damage to the airplane and hazards to persons or property on the
ground.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD

2018-0227 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all
Airbus SAS Model A330-223, A330-223F, A330-321, A330-322, and A330-323
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A report was received of an in-service occurrence where an
operator found a crack in the latch beam gussets of an affected TR
[thrust reverser], between the forward (L2) and middle (L3) latches,
adjacent to the aft cascade frame attachment bracket in the 6
o'clock beam. Subsequent investigation revealed that the crack
surface of the latch beam gusset showed indication of high fatigue
cycle, leading to development of a design modification, reinforcing
the latch beam gussets. This was introduced through Airbus
production mod 48539 (improvement of 6 o'clock latch beam) and
Airbus issued the modification SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A330-78-
3014, dated May 9, 2001] as a recommendation for in-service
aeroplanes. Since these measures were introduced, a new case was
reported of finding a crack beyond prediction at the latch beam
gusset of an affected TR, on which the recommended modification SB
had not been accomplished.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
crack propagation until part failure and potentially departure of TR
cascade during TR operation, which could create runway hazards for
other aeroplanes [which could result in damage to the airplane and
hazards to persons or property on the ground].
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the
inspection SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A330-78-3024, dated June 28,
2018] to provide instructions for special detailed inspection (SDI)
of the latch beam gussets.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time SDI of the latch beam gussets between the forward and middle
latches of the affected TR [for cracks] and, depending on findings,
replacement with improved (reinforced, modified) TR latch beam
gussets.

    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-2018-
1063.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0227 describes procedures for a one-time special
detailed inspection of the latch beam gussets between the forward and
middle latches of the affected T/R for cracks and modifying the latch
beam gussets. This material 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 and it is
publicly available through the EASA website.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,020........................              $0           $1,020           $9,180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
action that would be required based on the results of any required
actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need this on-condition action:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                   Parts cost                       Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 work-hours x $85 per hour = $2,210                 $0  $2,210 (per thrust reverser).
 (per thrust reverser).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost
estimate.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2019-06-08 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19606; Docket No. FAA-2018-1063;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-160-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 16, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A330-223, A330-223F,
A330-321, A330-322, and A330-323 airplanes, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine
exhaust.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking in the
latch beam gussets on a certain thrust reverser (T/R). We are
issuing this AD to address this condition, which, if not detected
and corrected, could lead to crack propagation until part failure
and potential departure of the T/R cascade during T/R operation,
which could result in damage to the airplane and hazards to persons
or property on the ground.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-
0227, dated October 22, 2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0227'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0227

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2018-0227 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0227 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, 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 Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2018-0227 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0227, dated
October 22, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2018-0227, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
[email protected]; Internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. EASA AD
2018-0227 may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2018-1063.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 25, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-07186 Filed 4-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41136-41137]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0552]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Harlem River, New York City, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the operation of the Park Avenue Bridge
across the Harlem River, mile 2.1, at New York City, New York. The
deviation is necessary for replacement of the lift cables and
rehabilitation of the operating system at the bridge. This temporary
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for 179
days to perform major rehabilitation repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from September 15, 2014 through
March 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0552] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Park Avenue Bridge has a vertical
clearance of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water.
The existing drawbridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR
117.789(c).
    The Harlem River has predominantly commercial vessel traffic that
can pass under the Park Avenue Bridge in the closed position without a
bridge opening.
    The owner of the bridge, Metro North Railroad, requested a bridge
closure to facilitate a major bridge rehabilitation project, the
replacement of the bridge lift cables and replacement of the electrical
and mechanical operating system at the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Park Avenue Bridge may remain
in the closed position from September 15, 2014 through March 12, 2015.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may
do so at all times. There are no alternate routes. The bridge can't be
opened in the event of an emergency during this rehabilitation
construction.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 27, 2014.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-16604 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 51238-51239]
[DOCID:fr29au06-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54343; File No. 4-429]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving Joint Amendment No. 19 to
the Intermarket Option Linkage Plan To Modify the Manner in Which the
Fee Applicable to New Participants Is Calculated

August 21, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On February 17, 2006, March 16, 2006, April 12, 2006, April 18,
2006, May 2, 2006, and May 22, 2006, International Securities Exchange,
Inc. (``ISE''), Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''), Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), Boston Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``BSE''), American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), and NYSE Arca,
Inc. (collectively, ``Participants'') \1\ respectively submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') Joint Amendment No.
19 to the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket
Option Linkage (the ``Linkage Plan'') pursuant to Section 11A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS.\3\ In the Joint Amendment, the Participants propose to
modify the manner in which the fee applicable to new Participants is
calculated.\4\ The proposed Joint Amendment was published in the
Federal Register on June 22, 2006.\5\ No comments were received on the
proposal. This order approves Joint Amendment No. 19 to the Linkage
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``Participant'' is an Eligible Exchange whose
participation in the Linkage Plan has become effective pursuant to
Section 4(c) of the Linkage Plan. See Section 2(24) of the Linkage
Plan.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \3\ 17 CFR 242.608. On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved a
national market system plan for the purpose of creating and
operating an intermarket options market linkage proposed by the
Amex, CBOE, and ISE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43086
(July 28, 2000), 65 FR 48023 (August 4, 2000). Subsequently, upon
separate requests by the Phlx, Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE
Arca, Inc.), and BSE, the Commission issued orders to permit these
exchanges to participate in the Linkage Plan. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70851
(November 28, 2000); 43574 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70850
(November 28, 2000); and 49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR 7029
(February 12, 2004).
    \4\ See Section 11(b) of the Linkage Plan.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54001 (June 15,
2006), 71 FR 35960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description and Purpose of the Amendment

    The purpose of Joint Amendment No. 19 is to modify the manner in
which the

fee applicable to new Participants is calculated. The participation fee
is determined by the Participants and is assessed in connection with an
Eligible Exchange \6\ becoming a new Participant. The Joint Amendment
provides that in determining the amount of the participation fee, the
Participants shall consider one or both of the following: (i) The
portion of costs previously paid by the Participants for the
development, expansion, and maintenance of Linkage \7\ facilities
which, under generally accepted accounting principles, could have been
treated as capital expenditures and, if so treated, would have been
amortized over the five years preceding the admission of the new
Participant (and for this purpose all such capital expenditures shall
be deemed to have a five-year amortizable life); and (ii) previous
participation fees paid by other new Participants. These standards are
substantially consistent with the participation fee standards contained
in the Consolidated Tape Association / Consolidated Quotation Plans
(``CTA/CQ Plans'').\8\ Further, the Participants would no longer be
required to calculate the participation fee at least once a year.
Instead, the participation fee would be calculated at the time an
Eligible Exchange seeks to become a Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Section 2(6) of the Linkage Plan.
    \7\ See Section 2(14) of the Linkage Plan.
    \8\ See Section III(c)(2) of the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
Joint Amendment to the Linkage Plan is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed Joint Amendment is consistent with
Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608 thereunder, in that the revised
participation fee calculation methodology appears reasonably designed
to provide specific, objective factors for determining entrance fees
for new Participants. The Commission also believes that the proposed
new standards, if appropriately employed by the Participants, should
foster a fair and reasonable method for determining a Linkage
participation fee amount.\9\ In making this finding the Commission
notes that the proposal prescribes participation fee standards that are
substantially similar to those standards already in place on the CTA/CQ
Plans.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission notes that the amount of the participation
fee would be determined in discussions among the Participants and
each Eligible Exchange seeking to become a Participant in light of
the participation fee standards enumerated in the Linkage Plan.
    \10\ See Section III(c)(2) of the CTA Plan. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 51391 (March 17, 2005), 70 FR 15132 (March
24, 2005) (SR-CTA/CQ-2004-01) (Order approving amendment to the CTA/
CQ Plans implementing new participant fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \11\
and Rule 608 thereunder,\12\ that proposed Joint Amendment No. 19 to
the Linkage Plan is hereby approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.608.

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

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14277 Filed 8-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

There are many issues and questions that need to be addressed, and they are all relevant to me as a consumer of the products facing this proposed regulation.  I need adequate time to carefully read and understand all of the issues, then do my own research, and finally provide you with a well thought out response.  I know that the FDA took many years to come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is my only opportunity to provide feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I firmly believe that they have lengthened my life! I want to tell you my personal story, as well as provide credible scientific and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore beg you to do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and would be happy to discuss this issue with you further.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

The e-cigarette saved my life. My doctor recommend it to me and it worked. 2 1/2 pack a day to 0 nicotine is life changing and life saving! Smoked for 30 years to nicotine free for 4 years!

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43325-43326]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15712]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78172; File No. SR-BOX-2016-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 7260 by Extending the Penny Pilot Program Through December
31, 2016

June 28, 2016.
    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 June 13, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``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 the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7260 by extending the Penny
Pilot Program through December 31, 2016. The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 to extend the effective time period of the
Penny Pilot Program that is currently scheduled to expire on June 30,
2016, until December 31, 2016.\3\ The Penny Pilot Program permits
certain classes to be quoted in penny increments. The minimum price
variation for all classes included in the Penny Pilot Program, except
for PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQQ'')[supreg], SPDR S&P 500 Exchange
Traded Funds (``SPY''), and iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds (``IWM''),
will continue to be $0.01 for all quotations in options series that are
quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in
options series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ,
SPY, and IWM will continue to be quoted in $0.01 increments for all
options series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot Program has been in effect on the Exchange
since its inception in May 2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 66871 (April 27, 2012), 77 FR 26323 (May 3, 2012) (File No. 10-
206, In the Matter of the Application of BOX Options Exchange LLC
for Registration as a National Securities Exchange Findings,
Opinion, and Order of the Commission), 67328 (June 29, 2012), 77 FR
40123 (July 6, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-007), 68425 (December 13, 2012),
77 FR 75234 (December 19, 2013) (SR-BOX-2012-021), 69789 (June 18,
2013), 78 FR 37854 (June 24, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-31), 71056 (December
12, 2013), 78 FR 76691 (December 18, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-56), 72348
(June 9, 2014), 79 FR 33976 (June 13, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-17), 73822
(December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75606 (December 18, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-
29), and 75295 (June 25, 2015), 80 FR 37690 (July 1, 2015) (SR-BOX-
2015-23). The extension of the effective date and the revision of
the date to replace issues that have been delisted are the only
changes to the Penny Pilot Program being proposed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may replace, on a semi-annual basis, any Pilot Program
classes that have been delisted on the second trading day following
July 1, 2016. The Exchange notes that the replacement classes will be
selected based on trading activity for the six month period beginning
December 1, 2015 and ending May 31, 2016 for the July 2016
replacements. The Exchange will employ the same parameters to
prospective replacement classes as approved and applicable under the
Pilot Program, including excluding high-priced underlying securities.
The Exchange will distribute a Regulatory Circular notifying
Participants which replacement classes shall be included in the Penny
Pilot Program.
    BOX is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other
options exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in identifying any
replacement class.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ 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 facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny
Pilot until December 31, 2016 and changes the dates for replacing Penny
Pilot issues that were delisted to the second trading day following
July 1, 2016, will enable public customers and other market
participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options for
the benefit of all market participants. This is consistent with the
Act.

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

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

of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, this proposal is pro-
competitive because it allows Penny Pilot issues to continue trading on
the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a determination
of how the Pilot should be structured in the future; and will serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. The Pilot is an
industry wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges. The
Exchange believes that extending the Pilot will allow for continued
competition between market participants on the Exchange trading similar
products as their counterparts on other exchanges, while at the same
time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow with
other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing.\9\ However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will allow the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of
the Pilot Program.\10\ Accordingly, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44). See
also supra note 3.
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or 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-BOX-2016-24 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-BOX-2016-24. 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 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also 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-BOX-2016-24 and should be
submitted on or before July 22, 2016.

    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. 2016-15712 Filed 6-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36106-36107]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP11-2188-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.204: ITS-2 Correction to be effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/14/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110614-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2189-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.
    Description: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Tariff Update Filing to be effective 7/15/
2011.
    Filed Date: 06/14/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110614-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2190-000.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.204: Reserved Capacity to be effective 7/15/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/15/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110615-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 27, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 15, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15424 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 42646-42648]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58158; File No. SR-OCC-2007-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations

July 15, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On December 14, 2007, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2007-20 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal
was published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2008.\2\ No
comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57270 (February 5,
2008), 73 FR 8098.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The proposed rule change permits the incorporation of certain forms
of securities deposited as margin collateral into OCC's System for
Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (``STANS'') risk
management methodology. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to
more accurately measure the risk in clearing members' accounts and
thereby permit OCC to set margin requirements that more precisely
reflect that risk. In connection with this rule change, it is also
necessary to include additional flexibility in determining the amount
of replacement collateral required when securities deposited as margin
are withdrawn. In addition, because OCC believes that certain existing
concentration limits and requirements regarding minimum share prices
are no longer appropriately applied to securities that are underlying
securities or to fund shares that track an index that is an underlying
index for covered contracts, OCC is eliminating such requirements with
respect to such securities.
    Overview of Rule Changes. OCC will incorporate certain common
stocks and ETFs (defined as ``fund shares'' in Article I of OCC's By-
Laws) into the STANS margin calculation process.\3\ STANS is a large-
scale Monte Carlo-based risk management methodology used to measure
risk associated with portfolios of cleared contracts. Currently, these
forms of securities when deposited as collateral to satisfy margin
requirements are priced on a nightly basis and are assigned a value
equal to their end-of-day market price minus the haircut applicable to
that form of collateral, an amount that varies according to asset type.
While this method of valuing collateral has generally served OCC well
in the past, it does not take into account the potential risk-reducing
impact that the deposited collateral might have on a clearing member's
portfolio. Under the rule change, cleared options positions and
underlying securities in the forms indicated above will be analyzed as
a single portfolio using STANS, thus providing a more accurate
valuation of securities deposited as collateral in relation to the
other positions in the account. The rule change will align risk
management techniques utilized to manage market risk of options
portfolios with those used to value margin deposits. There are two
primary benefits expected from the rule change. First, margin
requirements will be based on the risk of the combined portfolio that
includes both cleared contracts and deposited collateral, thereby
allowing the relevant intercorrelations of cleared contracts and
deposited collateral to be taken into consideration rather than
treating securities deposited as collateral as having fixed values.
Second, the coverage provided by a

particular asset class (e.g., shares of IBM common stock) will be based
on the historical volatility of that particular asset rather than by
taking a flat ``haircut'' rate across a much broader class of assets
(e.g., 30% haircut for common stock). For the period from August 16,
2007, to September 10, 2007, OCC staff computed margin requirements for
all existing accounts according to this proposed approach. The result
showed an average daily reduction in risk margin requirements of
approximately $1.2 billion, or 5%, as compared to OCC's current
approach. At the same time that average daily collateral requirements
will be reduced, the STANS calculations will also measure and
compensate for added risk arising where risks are positively correlated
rather than offsetting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a description of STANS, refer to Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 53322 (February 15, 2006) 71 FR 9403 (February 23, 2006)
(File No. SR-OCC-2004-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC is also adding an exception to collateral minimum price and
concentration limits with respect to certain securities deposited as
collateral. Currently, eligible collateral securities deposited with
OCC must (1) have a market value greater than $10 per share and (2) be
traded on a national securities exchange, the Nasdaq Global Market, or
the Nasdaq Capital Market. Additionally, the aggregate value of margin
attributed to a single security cannot exceed 10% of a clearing
member's total margin requirement. These criteria were designed to
limit deposits to liquid, readily marketable securities and to avoid
concentrations of deposits in a single security. OCC is adding an
exception to these eligibility and concentration requirements for
securities that are deliverable upon exercise of a contract cleared by
OCC or, in the case of ETFs, that track an index underlying cleared
contracts whether or not the particular ETF is an underlying security.
OCC believes that this exception will permit and encourage the use of
collateral that closely hedges related options positions. The exception
will apply only to the approximately 2,800 exchange-listed equity
securities that currently underlie listed options. Thus, OCC's existing
minimum value and concentration restrictions will continue to apply to
the approximate 7,200 exchange-listed equity securities that do not
underlie listed options.
    OCC is also making a minor amendment to the current requirement
that the aggregate value of margin attributed to a single security
cannot exceed 10% of the total margin requirement in an account. The
amendment will base the calculation on the clearing member's actual
margin deposits rather than the clearing member's total margin
requirement in the account. Thus, the requirement as amended will limit
the value given to deposits in any single security to no more than 10%
of the market value of a member's aggregate margin deposits in the
account. This test is very similar in purpose and effect to the current
test, but OCC believes it will be much easier to administer than the
current test when collateral is included in STANS.
    In addition, OCC will need a different means for addressing
substitutions of collateral where a security that has been valued in
STANS is being replaced during the business day. STANS performs
multiple portfolio revaluations during the business day using current
prices of collateral and cleared contracts. While the revaluations
include updated positions in cleared contracts reflecting intraday
trading activity, they do not at present include updated collateral
positions reflecting withdrawals and substitutions. In addition, it is
operationally too intensive, given the complexity of the STANS
methodology and the frequency of substitution requests, to recalculate
the STANS requirement for each such collateral withdrawal/deposit.
Although OCC intends ultimately to make further systems changes to
address these issues in more efficient ways, OCC has developed an
approach that provides the necessary protection to the clearing system
by taking a conservative view of the estimated impact that a
withdrawal/deposit would have on the member's requirement.
    OCC will treat margin collateral substitutions and withdrawals in
the same manner that substitutions and withdrawals of specific and
escrow deposits are treated. In the case of a margin withdrawal or
deposit, OCC will incorporate an adjustment factor, based on the
historical volatility of the security, equal to the estimated impact
(within the 99% confidence interval) of the security on the projected
liquidating value of the account. For example, if a clearing member
deposited $300 in IBM stock and IBM is given a risk adjustment factor
of 10%, the deposited stock would be given a value of $270 ($300 x
[100% -10%]) in intraday excess collateral value to be used against
releases to account for the potential negative risk impact of adding
the stock to the portfolio. If the clearing member then released $200
of Google stock and Google is given a risk adjustment factor of 12%,
the clearing member would be required to maintain $224 ($200 x [100% +
12%]) in excess collateral to account for the negative impact of
removing Google from the portfolio.
    Changes to OCC's Rules to Implement the Foregoing Concepts. OCC's
Rule 601, ``Margin Requirements,'' currently states in paragraph (c)
that margin assets may be incorporated into the Monte Carlo
calculations as an alternative to valuing such assets under Rule 604,
``Form of Margin Assets.'' OCC now proposes merely to add an
Interpretation to Rule 601 to indicate that OCC is implementing this
alternative to the extent that it will be incorporating common stocks
and ETFs into the STANS calculation of expected net liquidating value.
Rule 604(b)(4), which governs the deposit of equity and debt issues to
satisfy margin requirements, would be amended to provide exceptions to
the per share minimum price and concentration limits and to provide
that concentration limits will be measured in relation to the aggregate
margin on deposit rather than to the margin requirement in an account.
Rule 604(b)(4) is also proposed to be amended to reflect the fact that
Nasdaq is now registered as a national securities exchange. An
Interpretation is proposed to be added to Rule 608, ``Withdrawals of
Margin,'' to give OCC the flexibility to adopt the interim method of
dealing with collateral withdrawals and substitutions as described
above. The proposed changes in Rules 609, ``Intraday Margin,'' and
706(c), ``Cross-Margining Settlement Procedures,'' would reflect minor
conforming changes and nonsubstantive updates to streamline the rules
and add flexibility.
    OCC proposes to put all of the foregoing proposed rule changes into
effect simultaneously upon appropriate notice to clearing members once
systems changes needed for full implementation are in place. The
published text of OCC's Rules would not be modified until that time
although this rule change would be published as pending approval or
approved but not yet implemented, as the case may be.

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding
of securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for
which it is responsible.\4\ The Commission approved OCC's STANS risk
management methodology for the purpose of calculating clearing member
margin in February 2006 and has monitored the results of the
methodology through quarterly reports from OCC.\5\ The proposed rule
change to include certain common stocks and

fund shares deposited by OCC members as margin in the daily STANS risk
calculation is consistent with the purpose of the methodology, which is
to provide an accurate measure of the market risk in a clearing
member's account. The proposed rule change also amends OCC's rules
regarding the calculation of concentration limits and collateral
substitution to allow OCC to more easily implement the inclusion of
margin deposits in the STANS calculation. As noted above, OCC expects
to collect approximately 5 percent less margin under the proposed rule
change than it currently collects. However, this is because of the
increased diversification benefit allowed by the risk measurement under
STANS and not because of a decrease in OCC's risk tolerance in
calculating margin. Accordingly, because the proposed rule change
should not affect the purpose of the STANS methodology to provide OCC
with sufficient collateral in the event a member becomes insolvent or
otherwise fails to meet its obligations to OCC, it should assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or
control or for which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53322 (February 15,
2006), 71 FR 9403 (February 25, 2006) (File No. SR-OCC-2004-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also adds an exception to the collateral
minimum price and concentration limits in OCC's rules for securities
that are deliverable upon exercise of a contract cleared by OCC or, in
the case of ETFs, that track an index underlying cleared contracts
whether or not the particular ETF is an underlying security. The
minimum price and concentration limits in OCC's rules are designed to
assure that OCC will be able to collect sufficient collateral in the
event it needs to liquidate securities deposited as margin. This type
of liquidity risk should not apply if the security deposited as margin
is deliverable upon exercise of the clearing member's cleared contracts
or if the security is an exchange traded fund that tracks an index
underlying the clearing member's cleared contracts. Accordingly, the
proposed rule change to add this exception to the collateral minimum
price and concentration limits should not affect OCC's ability to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's
custody or control or for which it is responsible.

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 Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2007-20) be and hereby
is approved.

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

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-16687 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30414-30415]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program
and Request for Review Boise Air Terminal (Gowen Field) Boise, ID;
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Noise Exposure Maps, Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects the noise exposure map notice and receipt
of noise compatibility program and request for review published on May
10, 2016. In that document, the FAA has determinied that the noise
exposure maps submitted by the City of Boise, ID, for the Boise Air
Terminal (Gowen Field), Boise, ID, are in compliance with applicable
requirements, and that it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility
program that was submitted for Boise Air Terminal (Gowen Field) under
part 150 in conjunction with the Noise Exposure Map, and that this
program be approved or disapproved on or before October 29, 2016. This
document corrects an error in the Supplementary Information showing
Great Falls International Airport instead of Boise Air Terminal (Gowen
Field).

DATES: The comment period ends July 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Eaton, Community Planner, HLN-
612, Federal Aviation Administration, Helena Airports District Office,
FAA Building, Ste 2, 2725 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59502, telephone
(406) 449-5291, facsimile,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 10, 2016, the FAA published a notice
titled ``Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of Noise Compatibility
Program and Request for Review'' (81 FR 28933). In that Notice, the FAA
announces its compliance with noise exposure maps submitted for Boise
Air Terminal (Gowen Field), Boise, ID, and also announces that it is
reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program submitted in
conjunction with the noise exposure map.
    In the Federal Register of May 10, 1016, FR Doc. 2016-10981, make
the following correction:
    On page 28933, column 2, line 22, remove Great Falls International
Airport and add in its place Boise Air Terminal (Gowen Field).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 10, 2016.
Elliott Black,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2016-11503 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life.

I am requesting an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491.

On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I began smoking a pack of tobacco cigarettes a day at the age of 16, and none of the FDA-approved cessation methods worked for me. That was almost forty years ago. I am now smoke-free and nicotine-free, and have been for six months.

There is LITTLE CHANCE of me taking up tobacco cigarette smoking again, because I CAN'T STAND THE SMELL.

Without vaping (e-cigarettes), I would still be smoking.

However the proposed rule, if it becomes final, would likely make it impossible for others to follow the same path that I did.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to.

I wish to provide you with more details about my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Raj S.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 44068]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17778]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form N-17f-2.
    SEC File No. 270-317, OMB Control No. 3235-0360.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Form N-17f-2 (17 CFR 274.220) under the Investment Company Act is
entitled ``Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar
Investments in the Custody of Management Investment Companies.'' Form
N-17f-2 is the cover sheet for the accountant examination certificates
filed under Rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 270.17f-2) by registered management
investment companies (``funds'') maintaining custody of securities or
other investments. Form N-17f-2 facilitates the filing of the
accountant's examination certificates prepared under Rule 17f-2. The
use of the form allows the certificates to be filed electronically, and
increases the accessibility of the examination certificates to both the
Commission's examination staff and interested investors by ensuring
that the certificates are filed under the proper Commission file number
and the correct name of a fund.
    Commission staff estimates that it takes: (i) On average 1.25 hours
of fund accounting personnel at a total cost of $247.5 to prepare each
Form N-17f-2; \1\ and (ii) .75 hours of clerical time at a total cost
of $55.50 to file the Form N-17f-2 with the Commission.\2\
Approximately 188 funds currently file Form N-17f-2 with the
Commission. Commission staff estimates that on average each fund files
Form N-17f-2 four times annually for a total annual hourly burden per
fund of approximately 8 hours at a total cost of $1,212.00. The total
annual hour burden for Form N-17f-2 is therefore estimated to be
approximately 1504 hours. Based on the total annual costs per fund
listed above, the total cost of Form N-17f-2's collection of
information requirements is estimated to be approximately $227,856.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 1.25 x
$198 (fund senior accountant's hourly rate) = $247.5.
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: .75 x
$74 (secretary hourly rate) = $55.50.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 188
funds x $1,212.00 (total annual cost per fund) = $227,856.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Complying with the collections of
information required by Form N-17f-2 is mandatory for those funds that
maintain custody of their own assets. Responses will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the
burdens of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 23, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17778 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P