[Federal Register: July 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 37700-37701]
[DOCID:fr29jy09-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-64-000]

City of Vernon, CA; Notice of Filing

July 22, 2009.
    Take notice that on July 15, 2009, The City of Vernon (Vernon),
California filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, pursuant to Rule 207
of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 18 CFR 385.207 (2008). The City of Vernon, California
request the Commission to determine that when Vernon's Transmission
Revenue Requirement (TRR) is incorporated into and reviewed

as a component of the California Independent System Operator
Corporation Transmission Access Charge (TAC), it will not affect the
TAC's status as a just and reasonable rate and to the extent necessary,
Vernon's Transmission Owner Tariff (TO) provisions remain consistent
with the TO Tariff provisions of other Participating Transmission
Owners. Vernon also request that the filing fee for this petition be
waived and any waivers necessary to accept Vernon's TRR and TO Tariff
are granted.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 14, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17986 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11705-11709]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03706]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68907; File No. SR-PHLX-2013-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Catastrophic Errors

February 12, 2013.
    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 January 31, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule
1092, Obvious Errors and Catastrophic Errors. Specifically, Phlx
proposes to amend Rule 1092(f)(ii) to permit the nullification of
trades involving catastrophic errors in certain situations specified
below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new language is italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.

* * * * *

Rule 1092. Obvious Errors and Catastrophic Errors

    The Exchange shall either nullify a transaction or adjust the
execution price of a transaction that results in an Obvious Error as
provided in this Rule.

    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) Catastrophic Error Procedure.
    (i) Notification. If an Exchange member believes that it
participated in a transaction that qualifies as a Catastrophic Error
pursuant to paragraph (a)(ii) above, it must notify the Exchange's
Regulatory staff by 8:30 a.m. ET, on the first trading day following
the date on which the Catastrophic Error occurred. For transactions
in an expiring options series that take place on an expiration day,
an Exchange member must notify the Exchange by 5:00 p.m. ET that
same day. Relief will not be granted under this paragraph: (i)
unless notification is made within the prescribed time period; and
(ii) if an Options Exchange Official has previously rendered a
decision with respect to the transaction in question pursuant to
Rule 1092(e).
    (ii) Catastrophic Error determination. An Options Exchange
Official will determine whether the transaction(s) qualifies as a
Catastrophic Error. If it is determined that a Catastrophic Error
has occurred, the Options Exchange Official will adjust the
execution price(s) of the transaction(s) according to subparagraph
(f)(iii) below, as long as the adjusted price would not exceed the
limit price of a non-broker-dealer customer's limit order, in which
case the non-broker-dealer customer would have 20 minutes from
notification of the proposed adjusted price to accept it or else the
trade will be nullified. If it is determined that a Catastrophic
Error has not occurred, the member requesting the determination will
be subject to a charge of $5,000.
    (iii)-(iv) No change.
    (g) No change.
 Commentary:-----------------------------------------------------------
    .01-.02 No change.
* * * * *

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 purpose of the proposal is to help market participants better
manage their risk by addressing the situation where, under current
rules, a trade can be adjusted to a price outside of a customer's
limit. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1092(f) to
enable a non-broker-dealer customer who is the contra-side to a trade
that is deemed to be a catastrophic error to have the trade nullified
in instances where the adjusted price would violate the customer's
limit price. Only if the customer, or his agent, affirms the customer's
willingness to accept the adjusted price through the customer's limit
price within 20 minutes of notification of the catastrophic error
ruling would the trade be adjusted; otherwise it would be nullified.
Today, all catastrophic error trades are adjusted, not nullified, on
all of the options exchanges.
Background
    Currently, Rule 1092 governs obvious and catastrophic errors.
Obvious errors are calculated under the rule by determining a
theoretical price and determining, based on objective standards,
whether the trade should be nullified or adjusted. The rule also
contains a process for requesting an obvious error review. Certain more
substantial errors may fall under the category of a catastrophic error,
for which a longer time period is permitted to request a review and for
which trades can only be adjusted (not nullified). Trades are adjusted
pursuant to an adjustment table that, in effect, assesses an adjustment
penalty. By adjusting trades above or below the theoretical price, the
Rule assesses a ``penalty'' in that the adjustment price is not as
favorable as the amount the party making the error would have received
had it not made the error.
Proposal
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to change the catastrophic
error process to permit certain trades to be nullified. The definition
and calculation of a catastrophic error would not change.\3\ Once a
catastrophic error is determined by Exchange staff, then if both
parties to the trade are not a non-broker-dealer customer
(``customer''),\4\ then the trade would be adjusted under the current
rule. If one of the parties is a non-broker-dealer customer, then the
adjusted price would be compared to the limit price of the order. If
the adjusted price would violate the limit price (in other words, be
higher than the limit price if it is a buy and lower than the limit
price if it is a sell order), then the customer would be offered an
opportunity to nullify the trade. If the customer (or the customer's
broker-dealer agent) does not respond within 20 minutes, the trade
would be adjusted under the current rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Nor is the definition or process for obvious errors
changing.
    \4\ Professional customers are customers for purposes of Rule
1092. See Rule 1000(b)(x).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes should ensure that a customer is not forced into a
situation where the original limit price is violated and thereby the
customer is forced to spend additional dollars for a trade at a price
the customer had no interest in trading and may not be able to afford.

    Example 1--Resting Customer forced to adjust through his limit
price and would prefer nullification

Day 1

8:00:00 a.m. (pre-market)--Customer A enters order on PHLX to buy 10
GOOG May 750 puts for $25 (cost of $25,000, Customer has $50,000 in
his trading account).
10:00:00 a.m.
    GOOG trading at $750
    May 750 puts $29.00-$31.00 (100 x 100) on all exchanges
10:04:00 a.m.
    GOOG drops to $690
    May 750 puts $25-$100 (10 x 10) PHLX
    May 750 puts $20-$125 (10 x 10) CBOE
    May 750 puts $10-$200 (100 x 100) on all other exchanges
10:04:01 a.m.
    Customer B enters order to sell 10 May 750 puts for $25 (credit
of $25,000)
10:04:01 a.m.
    10 May 750 puts execute at $25 ($35 under parity)\5\ with
Customer A buying and Customer B selling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Parity is the intrinsic value of an option when it is in-
the-money. With respect to puts, it is calculated by subtracting the
price of the underlying from the strike price of the put. With
respect to calls, it is calculated by subtracting the strike price
from the price of the underlying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10:04:02 a.m. (1 second later)
    GOOG trading $690
    May 750 puts $75-$78 (100 x 100) PHLX
    May 750 puts $75-$80 (10 x 10) CBOE
    May 750 puts $70-$80 (100 x 100) All other exchanges
    No obvious error is filed within 20 minute notification time
required by rule. If this had been an obvious error review, the
trade would have been nullified in accordance with Rule 1092 because
one of the parties to the trade was a non-market maker.
4:00:00 p.m. (the close)
    GOOG trading $710
    May 750 puts $60-$63 (100 x 100) PHLX
    May 750 puts $55-$70 (10 x 10) CBOE
    May 750 puts $50-$70 (100 x 100) All other exchanges

Day 2

8:00:00 a.m. (pre-market)
    Customer B, submits S10 GOOG May 750 puts at $25 under
Catastrophic Review.
    Trade meets the criteria of Catastrophic Error and is adjusted
to $68 ($75 (the 10:04:02 a.m. price less $7 adjustment penalty).
9:30:00 a.m. (the opening)
    GOOG trading $725

    May 750 puts open $48.00-$51.00 (100 x 100) on all exchanges
    Under current rule:
    Without a choice, Customer A is forced to spend $68 (cost of
$68,000, with only $25,000 in his account)
    Puts are now trading $48, so Customer A shows a loss of $20,000
($68 less $48 x 10 contracts x 100 multiplier)
    Under proposed rule:
    Customer A would be able to choose to have the B10 GOOG May 750
puts nullified avoiding both a loss, and an expenditure of capital
exceeding the amount in his account. Customer B would be relieved of
the obligation to sell the puts at 25 because the trade would be
nullified.
    Example 2--Resting Customer trades, sells out his position, thus
would choose to keep the adjusted trade and avoid nullification

Day 1

8:00:00 a.m. (pre-market)--Customer A enters order on PHLX to Buy 10
BAC April 7.00 calls for $.01 (cost of $10 total. (Customer has
$3,000 in his account).
10:00:00 a.m.
    BAC trading $11
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (100 x 100) on all exchanges
10:04:00 a.m.
    BAC Trading $11
    April 7 calls $.01-$4.70 (10 x 10) PHLX
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10 x 10) CBOE
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10 x 10)) All other exchanges
10:04:01 a.m.
    Customer B enters order to sell 10 April 7 calls at $.01 on PHLX
with an ISO indicator (which allows trade through)
     10:04:01 a.m.
    10 April 7 calls execute at $.01 on PHLX Customer A buying and
Customer B selling.
10:04:02 a.m. (1 second later)
    BAC is $11
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10 x 10) PHLX
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10 x 10) CBOE
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10 x 10)) All other exchanges
    No obvious error is filed within 20 minute notification time
required by rule. If this had been an obvious error review, the
trade would have been nullified.
11:00:00 a.m.
    BAC trading $9.60
    April 7 calls $3.00-$3.25 (10 x 10) PHLX
    April 7 calls $.3.00-$3.25 (10 x 10) CBOE
    April 7 calls $3.00-$3.25 (10 x 10) All other exchanges
    Customer A sells 10 April 7 calls at $3.00 (a total credit of
$3,000 for a $2,990 profit)
3:00:00 p.m.
    BAC trading $12.80
    April 7 calls $5.80-$6.00 (10 x 10) PHLX
    April 7 calls $5.80-$6.00 (10 x 10) CBOE
    April 7 calls $5.80-$6.00 (10 x 10) All other exchanges
    Customer A has now no position and would be at risk of a loss if
nullified.
3:20:00 p.m.
    Customer B submits S10 BAC April 7 calls at $.01 under
Catastrophic Error Review.
    Trade meets the criteria of Catastrophic Error and is adjusted
to $2.50 ($4.50 (the 10:04:02 a.m. price) less $2 adjustment
penalty).
Impact:
    Under current Rule: Customer A would be adjusted to $2.50 ($4.50
(the 10:04:02 a.m. price) less $2 adjustment penalty.
    Under Proposed rule:
    Illustrating the need for a choice, Customer A chooses within 20
minutes to accept an adjustment to $2.50 instead of a nullification,
locking in a gain of $500 instead of $2.990 (B 10 at $2.50 vs. S10
at $3.00).
    If not given a choice, Customer A would be naked short 10 calls
at $3.00 that are now offered at $6.00 (a $3,000 loss).

    These examples illustrate the need for the non-broker dealer
customer to have a choice in order to manage his risk. By applying a
notification time limit of 20 minutes, it lessens the likelihood that
the customer will try to let the direction of the market for that
option dictate his decision for a long period of time, thus exposing
the contra side to more risk. This 20 minute time period is akin to the
notification period currently used in the rule respecting the
notification period for starting the obvious error process for member
organizations that initiated the order from off the floor of the
Exchange (as opposed to on-floor specialists and ROTs).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Phlx Rule 1092(e)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a market maker or a broker-dealer, the penalty that is part of
the price adjustment process is usually enough to offset the additional
dollars spent, and they can often trade out of the position with little
risk and a potential profit. For a customer who is not immersed in the
day-to-day trading of the markets, this risk may be unacceptable. A
customer is also less likely to be watching trading activity in a
particular option throughout the day and less likely to be closely
focused on the execution reports the customer receives after a trade is
executed. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is fair and
reasonable, and consistent with statutory standards, to change the
procedure for catastrophic errors for customers and not for other
participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is a fair way to address
the issue of a customer's limit price, yet still balance the competing
interests of certainty that trades stand versus dealing with true
errors. When Rule 1092 was first adopted, the Commission stated that it
``* * * considers that in most circumstances trades that are executed
between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the price of the
executed trade indicates an `obvious error' may exist, suggesting that
it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the trade had come to a
meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the transaction. In the
Commission's view, the determination of whether an `obvious error' has
occurred, and the adjustment or nullification of a transaction because
an obvious error is considered to exist, should be based on specific
and objective criteria and subject to specific and objective
procedures''. * * * The Commission believes that Phlx's proposed
obvious error rule establishes specific and objective criteria for
determining when a trade is an ``obvious error.'' Moreover, the
Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal establishes specific
and objective procedures governing the adjustment or nullification of a
trade that resulted from an ``obvious error.'' \7\ Since 2004, Phlx has
been administering this rule with respect to options trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49785 (May 28,
2004), 69 FR 32090 (June 8, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the Exchange amended Rule 1092 to adopt the catastrophic
error provision. In doing so, the Exchange stated that it had ``weighed
carefully the need to assure that one market participant is not
permitted to receive a windfall at the expense of another market
participant that made an Obvious Error, against the need to assure that
market participants are not simply being given an opportunity to
reconsider poor trading decisions. The Exchange states that, while it
believes that the Obvious Error Rule strikes the correct balance in
most situations, in some extreme situations, trade participants may not
be aware of errors that result in very large losses within the time
periods currently required under the rule. In this type of extreme
situation, the Exchange believes its members should be given more time
to seek relief so that there is a greater opportunity to mitigate very
large losses and reduce the corresponding large wind-falls. However, to
maintain the appropriate balance, the Exchange believes members should
only be given more time when the execution price is much further away
from the theoretical price than is required for Obvious Errors so that
relief is only provided in extreme circumstances.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58002 (June 23,
2008), 73 FR 36581 (June 27, 2008)(SR-Phlx-2008-42)(Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Catastrophic Errors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with those
principles because it strikes the aforementioned balance. The Exchange
is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 1092 to eliminate the risk
associated with (non-broker-dealer) customers

receiving an adjustment to a trade that is outside of the limit price
of their order, when there is a catastrophic error ruling respecting
their trade. The new provision would continue to entail specific and
objective procedures. Furthermore, the new provision more fairly
balances the potential windfall to one market participant against the
potential reconsideration of a trading decision under the guise of an
error.
    The obvious and catastrophic error rules of the options exchanges
are similar, especially with respect to only adjusting trades that
result in a catastrophic error. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes,
based on the aforementioned example and member requests, that this
aspect of the catastrophic error process should change, as explained
above. The Exchange staff has focused on this particular situation
because of a recent catastrophic error ruling that resulted in an
appeal pursuant to Rule 1092(f)(iv). On appeal, the committee was
concerned whether market participants are aware of how options exchange
catastrophic errors are handled and whether the rule should be
revisited. Relatedly, members of SIFMA's Options Committee also
expressed concern during a recent meeting that this particular outcome
may not be appropriate. Accordingly, the Exchange has determined to
amend the rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed 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, by helping Exchange members better manage the risk associated
with potential erroneous trades. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that the proposal is consistent with these principles because it
provides a fair process for customers to address catastrophic errors
involving a limit order. In particular, the proposal still permits
nullification in certain situations. Further, it gives customers a
choice. For two reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposal is unfairly discriminatory, even though it offers some
participants (customers) a choice as to whether a trade is nullified or
adjusted, while other participants will continue to have all of their
catastrophic errors adjusted. First, the rule currently differentiates
among Participants: The notification period to begin the obvious error
process is different for specialists and Registered Options
Traders,\11\ and whether a trade is adjusted or busted also
differs.\12\ Second, options rules often treat customers in a special
way,\13\ recognizing that customers are not necessarily immersed in the
day-to-day trading of the markets, less likely to be watching trading
activity in a particular option throughout the day and may have limited
funds in their trading accounts. Accordingly, differentiating among
Participant types by permitting customers to have a choice as to
whether to nullify a trade involving a catastrophic error is not
unfairly discriminatory, because it is reasonable and fair to provide
non-professional customers with additional options to protect
themselves against the consequences of obvious errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ See Rule 1092(e)(i)(A).
    \12\ See Rule 1092(e)(i)(A).
    \13\ For example, many options exchange priority rules treat
customer orders differently and some options exchanges only accept
certain types of orders from customers. Most options exchanges
charge different fees for customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange acknowledges that the proposal contains some
uncertainty regarding whether a trade will be adjusted or nullified,
depending on whether one of the parties is a customer, because a person
would not know, when entering into the trade, whether the other party
is or is not a customer. The Exchange believes that the proposal
nevertheless promotes just and equitable principles of trade and
protects investors and the public interest, because it eliminates a
more serious uncertainty in the rule's operation today, which is price
uncertainty. Today, a customer's order can be adjusted to a
significantly different price, as the examples above illustrate, which
is more impactful than the possibility of nullification. Furthermore,
there is uncertainty in the current obvious error portion of Rule 1092
(as well as the rules of other options exchanges), which Participants
have dealt with for a number of years. Specifically, Rule 1092(e)(ii)
provides that if it is determined that an Obvious Error has occurred:
(A) Where each party to the transaction is either a specialist or ROT
on the Exchange, the execution price of the transaction will be
adjusted by an Options Exchange Official, unless both parties agree to
nullify the transaction within ten minutes of being notified by
Regulatory staff of the Obvious Error; or (B) where at least one party
to the transaction in which an Obvious Error occurred is not a
specialist or ROT on the Exchange, an Options Exchange Official will
nullify the transaction, unless both parties agree to adjust the price
of the transaction within 30 minutes of being notified by Regulatory
staff of the Obvious Error. Therefore, a specialist who prefers
adjustments over nullification cannot guarantee that outcome, because,
if he trades with a customer, a resulting obvious error would only be
adjusted if the customer agreed to an adjustment. This uncertainty has
been embedded in the rule and accepted by market participants. The
Exchange believes that this proposal, despite the uncertainty based on
whether a customer is involved in a trade, is nevertheless consistent
with the Act, because the ability to nullify a customer's trade
involving a catastrophic error should prevent the price uncertainty
that mandatory adjustment under the current rule creates, which should
promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors
and the public interest.
    The proposal sets forth an objective process based on specific and
objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures. In
addition, the Exchange has again weighed carefully the need to assure
that one market participant is not permitted to receive a windfall at
the expense of another market participant that made a catastrophic
error, against the need to assure that market participants are not
simply being given an opportunity to reconsider poor trading decisions.
Accordingly, the Exchange has determined that introducing a
nullification procedure for catastrophic errors is appropriate and
consistent with the Act.
    Consistent with Section 6(b)(8),\14\ the Exchange also believes
that the proposal does not impose a burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as described
further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Currently, most options
exchanges have similar, although not identical, rules regarding
catastrophic errors. To the extent that this proposal would result in
Phlx's rule being different, market participants may choose to route
orders to Phlx, helping

Phlx compete against other options exchanges for order flow based on
its customer service by having a process more responsive to current
market needs. Of course, other options exchanges may choose to adopt
similar rules. The proposal does not impose a burden on intra-market
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act, because, even though it treats different market
participants differently, the Obvious Errors and Catastrophic Errors
rule has always been structured that way and adding the ability for
customers to choose whether a catastrophic error trade is nullified
does not materially alter the risks faced by other market participants
in managing the consequences of obvious errors. Overall, the proposal
is intended to help market participants better manage the risk
associated with potential erroneous options trades and does not impose
a burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PHLX-2013-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PHLX-2013-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-PHLX-2013-05 and should be
submitted on or before March 12, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03706 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 63216-63217]
[DOCID:fr08no07-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56725; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Amend the Market Access Provider Subsidy Section of the Exchange's Fee
Schedule

October 31, 2007.
    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 October 23, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Phlx. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Phlx proposes to amend the Exchange's fee schedule to reflect a
Market Access Provider (``MAP'') Marketing Subsidy of $25,000.00 per
month for a maximum of three months.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange,
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.Phlx.com/exchange/phlx-rule-fil.htm
.

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide marketing
incentives to Exchange member organizations, and to encourage
additional options order flow to the Exchange.

Market Access Provider

    In August 2007, the Exchange amended its fee schedule to provide a
per contract subsidy (the ``Subsidy'') for certain Exchange members
known as MAPs.\3\ A MAP is an Exchange member organization that offers
to customers automated order routing systems and electronic market
access to U.S. options markets. The Exchange pays a per-contract MAP
Subsidy to any Exchange member organization that qualifies as a MAP (an
``Eligible MAP'') \4\ who elects to participate by submitting any
application(s) and/or form(s) required by the Exchange and complying
with other conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56274 (August 16,
2007), 72 FR 48720 (August 24, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-54).
    \4\ The term ``Eligible MAP'' is defined in current footnote
4(b) of the Market Access Provider Subsidy section of the Exchange's
fee schedule (the instant proposal would re-number that footnote to
5(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal

    The proposal would provide an incentive for Eligible MAPs to market
the Exchange as a destination for orders routed by the MAP.
Specifically, the Exchange would pay a MAP Marketing Subsidy of
$25,000.00 per month, for a maximum of three months (totaling
$75,000.00), to Eligible MAPs, in addition to the current per-contract
Subsidy.
    The MAP Marketing Subsidy is intended to be used by the Eligible
MAP to: (i) Promote the Subsidy program; (ii) provide technical
assistance and information to its customers on the equity options order
routing functionality that pertains to the Subsidy program; and (iii)
analyze the volume based usage of such order routing functionality by
the Eligible MAP and its customers, in each case with a view towards
the successful launch of the Eligible MAP's participation in the
Subsidy for Eligible MAPs.
    The maximum aggregate Marketing Subsidy that an Eligible MAP would
be entitled to receive is $75,000 (i.e., 3 monthly payments). The
Exchange's obligation to pay this Marketing Subsidy will be conditioned
upon (a) execution by the Eligible MAP of an agreement to function as a
MAP with the Exchange and compliance in all respects with the
requirements specified therein, and (b) continued participation of the
Eligible MAP in the Subsidy program, including compliance in all
respects with the requirements of the program.
    The Exchange believes that the MAP Marketing Subsidy should assist
MAPs in their marketing efforts to route order flow to the Exchange,
which should, in turn, encourage more options order flow to the
Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed 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
by enhancing the Exchange's competitive position by providing the MAP
Marketing Subsidy to Eligible MAPs and increasing order flow to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\8\ in that the proposed rule change
establishes or changes a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by
the self-regulatory organization. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments:

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

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-82 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-82. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-82 and should be
submitted on or before November 29, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-21879 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 176 (Monday, September 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62676-62679]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9057; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-055-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-26-
08, for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200F, and -300 series airplanes. AD
2014-26-08 currently requires revising the maintenance or inspection
program to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations. Since we issued AD 2014-26-08, we have determined that
more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations
are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance
or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised
airworthiness limitation requirements. This proposed AD would also
remove certain airplanes from the applicability. We are proposing this
AD to prevent safety-significant latent failures that would, in
combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result
in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.

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

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45
80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.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
425-227-1221.

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-
9057; 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: Vladimir Ulyanov, 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-2016-9057;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-055-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

    On December 19, 2014, we issued AD 2014-26-08, Amendment 39-18059
(80 FR 3866, January 26, 2015) (``AD 2014-26-08''). AD 2014-26-08
requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus
Model A330-200, -200F, and -300 series airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2014-26-08, we have determined that more
restrictive instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0066, dated April 6, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Model A330-200, -
200F, and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations are currently defined and
published in the Airbus A330 and A340 Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) documents.
    The mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations
applicable to the Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR),
which are approved by EASA, are specified in Airbus A330 and A340
ALS Part 3. Failure to comply with these instructions could result
in an unsafe condition.
    EASA issued AD 2013-0245 (A330 aeroplanes) and AD 2013-0021
(A340 aeroplanes) to require the actions as specified in Airbus A330
and A340 ALS Part 3 at Revision 04 and Revision 02, respectively.
    Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, Airbus issued Revision 05
and Revision 03, respectively, of Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 3,
to introduce more restrictive maintenance requirements.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2013-0245 and [EASA] AD 2013-0021,

which are superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions
specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 3 Revision 05, or A340 ALS Part 3
Revision 03, as applicable * * *.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2016-9057.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section ALS
Part 3--Certification Maintenance Requirements, Revision 05, dated
October 19, 2015. The service information describes updated inspections
and intervals to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection
program. 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.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective
actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance
documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that
requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by
general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform
maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider
those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions
necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this
proposed AD.
    Although the MCAI recommends accomplishing the maintenance program
revision within 12 months, this proposed AD requires accomplishment
within 90 days. We find that a compliance time of 12 months would not
address the unsafe condition soon enough to maintain an adequate level
of safety for the affected fleet. In developing an appropriate
compliance time for this AD, we considered the degree of urgency
associated with addressing the unsafe condition, and the maximum
interval of time allowable for all affected airplanes to continue to
operate without compromising safety. We find 90 days an appropriate
compliance time to complete this revision.
    These differences have been coordinated with the EASA and Airbus.

Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

    The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the
applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into
an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
    Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation
authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered
under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD
typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.
    In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an
airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in
this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or
inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as
specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been
approved by the FAA.
    When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific
ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified
in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is
an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design
referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation
may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS
revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part
of their type design.
    To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods
of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most
recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu
of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict
and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type
design.
    However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we
recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-
mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection
programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS
revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure
that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly
delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in
an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS
revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of
the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier
AD.
    This proposed AD therefore would apply to the airplanes identified
in paragraph (c) of this AD with an original certificate of
airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was
issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified
in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original
certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness
limitations specified as part of the approved type design and
referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 104 airplanes of
U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2014-26-08, and retained in this
proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the actions that are required by AD 2014-26-08 is $85 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 2 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 $17,680, or $170
per product.

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 removing Airworthiness Directive AD
2014-26-08, Amendment 39-18059 (80 FR 3866, January 26, 2015), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-9057; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
055-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 27, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-26-08, Amendment 39-18059 (80 FR 3866,
January 26, 2015) (``AD 2014-26-08'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
223F -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original
certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before October 19, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic
inspections.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent safety-significant
latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other
specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic
failure condition.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained: Revision of the Maintenance or Inspection Program, With
No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2014-26-08, with no changes.
    (1) Within 90 days after March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD
2014-26-08): Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations
Section ALS Part 3--Certification Maintenance Requirements, Revision
04, dated August 27, 2013. Within the applicable compliance time
defined in the ``Record of Revisions'' section of Airbus A330
Airworthiness Limitations Section ALS Part 3--Certification
Maintenance Requirements, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013, except
as provided by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, accomplish all
applicable maintenance tasks. Accomplishing the actions specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this
paragraph.
    (2) Where paragraph 3 of the ``Record of Revisions'' section of
Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section ALS Part 3--
Certification Maintenance Requirements, Revision 04, dated August
27, 2013, specifies accomplishing the actions ``from 27 August
2013,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance
time after March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-26-08).

(h) Retained: No Alternative Inspections or Intervals, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2014-26-08, with no changes. After accomplishment of the action
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, no alternative inspections
or inspection intervals may be used, other than those specified in
Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section ALS Part 3--
Certification Maintenance Requirements, Revision 04, dated August
27, 2013, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(2) and (i) of this
AD, unless the inspections or intervals are approved as an AMOC in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
AD.

(i) New: Revision of the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section ALS Part 3--
Certification Maintenance Requirements, Revision 05, dated October
19, 2015. Accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph
terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) New: No Alternative Inspections or Intervals

    After the action required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been
done, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be
used, other than those specified in Airbus A330 Airworthiness
Limitations Section ALS Part 3--Certification Maintenance
Requirements, Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015, unless the
inspections or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0066, dated April 6, 2016,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9057.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.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 August 24, 2016.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-21164 Filed 9-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33220-33222]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11678]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94980; File No. SR-ICC-2022-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Governance Playbook

May 25, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On April 4, 2022, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``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 revise the ICC
Governance Playbook.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on April 12, 2022.\4\ 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\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Rules and Governance Playbook.
    \4\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Governance
Playbook; Exchange Act Release No. 34-94616 (Apr. 6, 2022), 87 FR
21687 (Apr. 12, 2022) (SR-ICC-2022-003) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Background

    The ICC Governance Playbook consolidates governance arrangements
set forth in ICC's Rules, operating agreement, and other ICC policies
and procedures. The Governance Playbook contains information regarding
the governance structure at ICC, including the Board, committees, and
management.

B. Changes to the Governance Playbook

    The proposal would make clarifications and updates regarding the
roles and responsibilities of the ICC Legal Department and internal
committees involved in the governance process.\5\ Specifically, the
proposal would amend Section I of the Governance Playbook, which
describes the purpose of the document, to state that the ICC Legal
Department will review and amend the Governance Playbook as needed when
there are circumstances that may impact the governance procedures of
ICC, such as

regulatory changes or changes in ICC's structure or practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The description that follows is substantially excerpted from
the Notice, 87 FR at 21687-21688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would also amend Section III.H, which contains
information on disclosures that ICC is required to make to regulators,
Clearing Participants, and the public. ICC maintains a public
Disclosure Framework that describes its material rules, policies, and
procedures regarding its legal, governance, risk management, and
operating framework. The proposal would add additional details on the
process of updating this Disclosure Framework. Specifically, the
proposed rule changes would amend this section to state that the Legal
Department would determine when changes to the Disclosure Framework are
necessary and that it will update the document every two years or more
frequently as necessary. Additionally, the proposal would revise
Section III.H to include regulations applicable to Disclosure Framework
updates, a related change to spell out an abbreviated term for
consistency, and to define what constitutes a material change that
would require a Disclosure Framework update. Finally, the proposal
would revise this section to incorporate procedures for reporting
Disclosure Framework changes pursuant to applicable regulations.
    The proposal would also amend Section IV of the Governance
Playbook, which discusses various committees. Specifically, the
proposal would update the description of the membership composition of
the Steering Committee by including amended titles and positions in
order to be consistent with the membership composition set out in the
Steering Committee's charter, and removing outdated information
regarding the Steering Committee's membership from the Governance
Playbook. The Steering Committee continues to review, approve and
oversee the implementation of CDS product launches and initiatives.
    Additionally, the proposal would add a section discussing the CDS
Service Review committee, including its description, membership
composition, meeting frequency, and relevant documents. According to
ICC, this is not a new committee. Its purpose is to discuss and review
the status of active ICC initiatives to report on the delivery process
and technology delivery-related activities (e.g., development,
testing), and its proposed addition to the Governance Playbook is for
transparency and completeness in order to ensure that the Governance
Playbook includes all groups relevant to ICC's governance process.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice 87 FR at 21688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\7\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \8\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(23)(v).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
22(e)(23)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. 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 ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.\10\
Based on its review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below,
the Commission believes the proposed changes to the Governance Playbook
are consistent with the promotion of the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of transactions at ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed rule change would make clarifications
and updates regarding the roles and responsibilities of the ICC Legal
Department and internal committees involved in its governance
processes. Specifically, the proposal would amend Section I of the
Governance Playbook, which describes the purpose of the document, to
state that ICC's Legal Department will review and amend the Governance
Playbook as needed when there are circumstances that may impact the
governance procedures of ICC, such as regulatory changes or changes in
ICC's structure or practices. Further, as noted above, the proposed
changes would amend Section III.H to include additional details on the
process of updating the public Disclosure Framework and cite related
regulatory requirements for doing so.
    The Commission believes that the changes to sections I and III.H
would enhance the effectiveness of ICC's governance documents by
ensuring that users of the Governance Playbook are aware of who is
responsible for reviewing and amending the Governance Playbook and the
circumstances necessitating such amendments. Likewise, the Commission
believes that by including additional details on the process of
updating the Disclosure Framework along with citations to related
regulatory requirements for doing so, the proposed rule change would
enhance the ability of users of the Governance Playbook to carry out
their duties. The Commission believes that this in turn will provide
clear governance arrangements that support ICC's compliance with
relevant regulations and procedures, thereby helping ICC maintain
effective risk management processes to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance of settlement and securities transactions and derivative
agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC.
    Additionally, as noted above, the proposal would update the
membership composition of the Steering Committee by including amended
titles and new positions and removing outdated information regarding
the Steering Committee's membership composition from the Governance
Playbook. The Commission believes that these updates help the Board, as
well as ICC's management, employees, and members, to be updated on the
roles and responsibilities of ICC officers, committees and
subcommittees. As noted above, the proposal would also incorporate into
the Governance Playbook information (its description, membership
composition, meeting frequency, and relevant documents) about a current
committee, the CDS Service Review committee. The Commission believes
that by including information about an existing governing committee in
the Governance Playbook, the proposal would support ICC's ability to
carry out duties related to active ICC initiatives. Taken together, the
Commission believes that these changes to committee information could
support ICC's ability to manage product launches and other active
initiatives and therefore facilitate ICC's ability to provide clearing
services that are supported by clear risk management processes that
promote the prompt and accurate clearance of settlement and securities
transactions and derivative agreements, contracts and transactions
cleared by ICC.
    For the reasons stated above, the Commission therefore believes
that the

proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) requires each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, provide for
governance arrangements that are clear and transparent.\12\ As
described above, the proposed changes more clearly set out the
responsibilities of the Legal Department and include updates with
respect to relevant internal individuals and committees involved in the
governance process. The Commission believes that by clearly describing
the responsibilities of the Legal Department, committees,
subcommittees, and their participants as noted above, these proposed
changes provide for clear and transparent governance arrangements to
those serving on those committees and utilizing the Governance
Playbook. For the reasons stated above, the Commission believes the
proposed rule changes are consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(v) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(v) under the Act require each covered clearing
agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to provide for an update of the
public disclosure every two years, or more frequently following changes
to the covered clearing agency's system or the environment in which it
operates to the extent necessary, to ensure statements previously
provided remain accurate in all material respects.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed changes assign responsibility,
reference applicable regulations, and include additional information
and procedures regarding maintaining and updating the Disclosure
Framework in accordance with relevant regulations. Specifically, the
proposed changes would update the process by which the ICC Legal
Department will update the public Disclosure Framework every two years
or more frequently following material changes to ICC's systems or
environment in which it operates, including updates for major decisions
of the Board with a broad market impact. The Commission believes that
these aspects of the Governance Playbook provide further clarity
regarding ICC's policies and procedures for making a comprehensive
public disclosure that is updated every two years or more frequently
following material changes.
    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(v) under the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)(F) of the
Act \16\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and 17Ad-22(e)(23)(v)
thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (e)(23)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2022-003), be, and hereby
is, approved.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11678 Filed 5-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6867]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0179]

Training Program for Regulatory Project Managers; Information
Available to Industry

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER) is announcing the continuation of the
Regulatory Project Management Site Tours and Regulatory Interaction
Program (the Site Tours Program). The purpose of this document is to
invite pharmaceutical companies interested in participating in this
program to contact CDER.

DATES: Pharmaceutical companies may submit proposed agendas to the
Agency by April 11, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Brum, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 22, Rm. 5480, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    An important part of CDER's commitment to make safe and effective
drugs available to all Americans is optimizing the efficiency and
quality of the drug review process. To support this primary goal, CDER
has initiated various training and development programs to promote high
performance in its regulatory project management staff. CDER seeks to
significantly enhance review efficiency and review quality by providing
the staff with a better understanding of the pharmaceutical industry
and its operations. To this end, CDER is continuing its training
program to give regulatory project managers the opportunity to tour
pharmaceutical facilities. The goals are to provide firsthand exposure
to industry's drug development processes, and a venue for sharing
information about project management procedures (but not drug-specific
information) with industry representatives.

II. The Site Tours Program

    In this program, over a 2- to 3-day period, small groups (five or
less) of regulatory project managers, including a senior level
regulatory project manager, can observe operations of pharmaceutical
manufacturing and/or packaging facilities, pathology/toxicology
laboratories, and regulatory affairs operations. Neither this tour nor
any part of the program is intended as a mechanism to inspect, assess,
judge, or perform a regulatory function, but is meant rather to improve
mutual understanding and to provide an avenue for open dialogue. During
the Site Tours Program, regulatory project managers will also
participate in daily workshops with their industry counterparts,
focusing on selective regulatory issues important to both CDER staff
and industry. The primary objective of the daily workshops is to learn
about the team approach to drug development, including drug discovery,
preclinical evaluation, tracking mechanisms, and regulatory submission
operations. The overall benefit to regulatory project managers will be
exposure to project management, team techniques, and processes employed
by the pharmaceutical industry. By participating in this program, the
regulatory project manager will grow professionally by gaining a better
understanding of industry processes and procedures.

III. Site Selection

    All travel expenses associated with the Site Tours Program will be
the responsibility of CDER; therefore, selection will be based on the
availability of funds and resources for each fiscal year. Selection
will also be based on firms having a favorable facility status as
determined by FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs District Offices in
the firms' respective regions. Firms interested in offering a site tour
or learning more about this training opportunity should respond by
submitting a proposed agenda to Dan Brum directly (see DATES and FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Dated: February 3, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-02515 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 59097-59098]
[DOCID:fr06oc06-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[IC06-592-001, FERC 592]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

September 29, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information
collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and extension of this information collection requirement.
Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission received no comments in response to an earlier Federal
Register notice of July 26, 2006 (71 FR 42369-42370) and has made this
notation in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by October 31,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the OMB Control No. as a point of

reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
4650. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34,
Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For
paper filings an original and 14 copies of such comments should be
submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should
refer to Docket No. IC06-592-001.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To
file the document, access the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 and click on ``Make an E-Filing,'' and then follow the

instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a
user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic
acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of
comments. User assistance for electronic filings is available at 202-
502-8258 or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should not be
submitted to this e-mail address.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For user assistance, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

    The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the
following:
    1. Collection of Information: FERC 592 ``Marketing Affiliates of
Interstate Pipelines''.
    2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    3. Control No.: 1902-0157.
    The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve and extend the
expiration date for an additional three years with no changes to the
existing collection. The information filed with the Commission is
mandatory.
    4. Necessity of the Collection of Information: Submission of the
information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its
responsibilities in implementing the Statutory provisions of sections
4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 20 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 15 U.S.C.
717-717w and Title II, section 311 and sections 501 and 504 of the
Natural Gas Policy Act (Pub. L. 95-621).
    The FERC-592 requirements apply to ``Transmission Providers'' who
are defined as any interstate natural gas pipeline that transports gas
for others, subject to the Natural Gas Act (i.e., pursuant to subpart A
of part 157 or subparts B or G of part 284). See 18 CFR 358.3(a)(1) and
(2). A Transmission Provider does not include a natural gas storage
provider authorized to charge market-based rates that is not
interconnected with the jurisdictional facilities of any affiliated
interstate natural gas pipeline, has no exclusive franchise area, no
captive ratepayers or no market power, 18 CFR 358.3(a)(3).
    Initially, FERC-592 was adopted when the Commission issued the
Standards of Conduct in Order No. 497, 53 FR 22161, June 14, 1988. The
Standards of Conduct prevent Transmission Providers from discriminating
against non-affiliated shippers or from granting undue preferences to
their marketing affiliates. In response to growing competition in the
natural gas marketplace and to further ensure that it could monitor
transactions for the exercise of market power, the Commission revised
its reporting requirements in Order No. 637, 65 FR 10219, on February
25, 2000. The Commission required pipelines to post more transmission
information on their Internet websites to improve transparency of
transmission information.
    With the revisions in Order No. 637, the Commission also eliminated
many of the requirements of the original FERC-592s. First the
Commission eliminated the requirement to submit

the FERC-592 information to the Commission. Second the Commission
eliminated many of the items required under the FERC-592 requirements
and retained only two requirements: (1) a pipeline must retain
information pertaining to discounts (affiliated and non-affiliated)
and, (2) if a pipeline relies on contract information or other data to
allocate capacity, it must maintain a log of that information for all
shippers (affiliated and non-affiliated).
    In November 2003, the Commission enhanced and expanded the
Standards of Conduct in Order No. 2004 and subsequently in Order Nos.
2004-A, B, C, and D. However, Order No. 2004 did not substantively
change the FERC-592 requirements, which applies only to natural gas
Transmission Providers.
    While there are many different requirements under the Standards of
Conduct, the basic requirements are that a Transmission Provider must:
(1) function independently from its Marketing and Energy Affiliates;
and (2) must treat all transmission customers, affiliated and non-
affiliated, on a non-discriminatory basis and may not operate its
transmission system to preferentially benefit its Marketing or Energy
Affiliates. See 18 CFR 358.2.
    This information contained in the FERC-592s is used by the
Commission, market participants and state commissions to monitor for
undue discrimination by pipeline companies in favor of their marketing
affiliates and in some cases, this information is used in formal
proceedings following the filing of a complaint.
    5. Respondent Description: The respondent universe currently
comprises 85 companies (on average) subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.
    6. Estimated Burden: 9,913 total hours, 85 respondents (average), 1
response per respondent, and 117 hours per response (average).
    7. Estimated Cost Burden to Respondents: 9,913 hours/2080 hours per
years x $117,321 per year = $559,136. The cost per respondent is equal
to $6,578.
    Statutory Authority: Statutory provisions of sections 4, 5, 7, 8,
10, 14, 16, and 20 of the Natural Gas Act (NPA) 15 U.S.C. 717-717w and
Title II, section 311 and sections 501 and 504 of the Natural Gas
Policy Act (Pub. L. 95-621).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16533 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P