\447\ See section VI.B.3 and n.403, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Total Initial and Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burdens of Rule
901 of Regulation SBSR
    Pursuant to rule 901, covered transactions must be reported to a
registered SDR or to the Commission. Together, sections (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (h), and (j) of rule 901 set forth the parameters that govern
how covered transactions are reported. Rule 901(i) addresses the
reporting of pre-enactment and transitional security-based swaps. These
reporting requirements impose initial and ongoing burdens on
respondents. We preliminarily believe that these burdens would be a
function of, among other things, the number of reportable events and
the data elements required to be reported for each such event. Rule
901(f) requires a registered SDR to time stamp, to the second, all
reported information, and rule 901(g) requires a registered SDR to
assign a transaction ID to each security-based swap, or establish or
endorse a methodology for transaction IDs to be assigned by third
parties. These requirements impose initial and ongoing burdens on
registered SDRs. We preliminarily believe that the proposed amendments
addressed in this release would not impact the cost burdens resulting
from rules 901(f) and 901(g) on registered SDRs because the number of
respondents does not impact our calculation of these costs.\448\
Therefore we do not address the costs associated with these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \448\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR 14676-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Respondents. The reporting hierarchy set forth in rule 901(a)
is designed to place the duty to report covered transactions on
counterparties who are most likely to have the resources and who are
best able to support the reporting function.
    Respondents that fall under the reporting hierarchy in rule
901(a)(2)(ii) incur certain burdens as a result thereof with respect to
their reporting of covered transactions. As stated above, we
preliminarily believe that an estimate of 120 additional respondents
that would incur the duty to report under Regulation SBSR is reasonable
for estimating collection of information burdens. This estimate
includes all persons that would incur a reporting duty under proposed
amendments to Regulation SBSR, that are not already subject to burdens
under current rule 901.
    In the Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, we estimated that there
were likely to be approximately 3 million reportable events per year
under rule 901.\449\ We further estimated that approximately 2 million
of these reportable events would consist of uncleared transactions. We
estimated that 2 million of the 3 million total reportable events would
consist of the initial reporting of security-based swaps as well as the
reporting of any life cycle events. We also estimated that of the 2
million reportable events, approximately 900,000 would involve the
reporting of new security-based swap transactions, and approximately
1,100,000 would involve the reporting of life cycle events under rule
901(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \449\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR 14675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our assessment of the effect of the proposed amendments to
Regulation SBSR, we estimate that they would result in approximately
2,700 additional reportable events per year under rule 901. Taking a
similar approach to the Regulation SBSR Adopting Release but also
accounting for security-based swaps that would be reported by a
registered broker-dealer, we estimate that, of the 2,700 new reportable
events, 1,512 would involve the reporting of new security-based swap
transactions, and approximately 1,188 would involve the reporting of
life cycle events under rule 901(e).\450\ Based

on these estimates, we preliminarily believe that rule 901(a) would
result in respondents having a total burden of 7.6 hours attributable
to the initial reporting of security-based swaps by respondents to
registered SDRs under rules 901(c) and 901(d) over the course of a
year.\451\ We further estimate that respondents would have a total
burden of 5.9 hours attributable to the reporting of life cycle events
under rule 901(e) over the course of a year.\452\ Therefore, we
preliminarily believe that the proposed amendments to Regulation SBSR
would result in a total reporting burden for respondents under rules
901(c) and 901(d) along with the reporting of life cycle events under
rule 901(e) of 13.5 burden hours per year. We continue to believe that
many reportable events would be reported through electronic means and
that the ratio of electronic reporting to manual reporting is likely to
increase over time. We continue to believe that the bulk of the burden
hours estimated above would be attributable to manually reported
transactions.\453\ Thus, respondents that capture and report
transactions electronically would likely incur fewer burden hours than
those respondents that capture and report transactions manually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \450\ As noted above, we expect that 20% of the new reportable
events would be reported by registered broker-dealers pursuant to
901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4) and thus would involve the reporting only of new
security-based swap transactions and not of life-cycle events. See
note 403, supra. Under this assumption, we would expect 540
reportable events (2,700 * 0.2) to be new security-based swap
transactions reported by registered broker-dealers, and 972
reportable events to be other new security-based swap transactions
that would be required to be reported under the proposed rule
((2,700--540) * 0.45), for a total of 1,512 reportable events that
are new security-based swap transactions. The remaining 1,188
reportable events ((2,700--540) * 0.55) would be life-cycle events
reportable under rule 901(e). Cf. Regulation SBSR Adopting Release,
80 FR 14676.
    \451\ In the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release, we estimated
that it would take approximately 0.005 hours for each security-based
swap transaction to be reported. See 75 FR at 75249 n.195. We
calculate the following: ((1,512* 0.005)/(120 respondents)) = 0.06
burden hours per respondent or 7.6 total burden hours attributable
to the initial reporting of security-based swaps.
    \452\ In the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release, we estimated
that it would take approximately 0.005 hours for each security-based
swap transaction to be reported. See 75 FR at 75249 n.195. We
calculate the following: ((1,188 * 0.005)/(120 respondents)) = 0.05
burden hours per reporting side or 5.9 total burden hours
attributable to the reporting of life cycle events under rule
901(e).
    \453\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR 14676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing and applying the same calculation methods
used in the Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, we estimate that rule
901, as proposed in this release, would impose an estimated total
first-year burden of approximately 1,361 hours \454\ per respondent for
a total first-year burden of 163,320 hours for all respondents that
would incur the duty to report under the proposed amendments to rule
901(a)(2)(ii)(E).\455\ We estimate that rule 901, when applied to new
respondents resulting from the proposed amendments to rule 901(a),
would impose ongoing annualized aggregate burdens of approximately 654
hours \456\ per respondent for a total aggregate annualized burden of
78,480 hours for all new respondents.\457\ We further estimate that
rule 901 would impose initial and ongoing annualized dollar cost
burdens of $201,000 per respondent, for total aggregate initial and
ongoing annualized dollar cost burdens of $24,120,000.\458\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \454\ We derived our estimate from the following: (355 hours
(one-time hourly burden for establishing an OMS) + 172 hours (one-
time hourly burden for establishing security-based swap reporting
mechanisms) + 180 hours (one-time hourly burden for compliance and
ongoing support) = 707 hours (one-time total hourly burden). See
Regulation SBSR Proposing Release, 75 FR 75248-50 nn.186, 194, and
201. (436 hours (annual-ongoing hourly burden for internal order
management) + 0.11 hours (revised annual-ongoing hourly burden for
security-based swap reporting mechanisms) + 218 hours (annual-
ongoing hourly burden for compliance and ongoing support) = 654
hours (one-time total hourly burden. See id. 75248-50 nn.187 and 201
(707 one-time hourly burden + 654 revised annual-ongoing hourly
burden = 1,361 total first-year hourly burden).
    \455\ We derived our estimate from the following: (1,361 hours
per respondent * 120 respondents) = 163,320 hours.
    \456\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR 14676 (citing
Cross-Border Adopting Release, 78 FR 31112-15).
    \457\ We derived our estimate from the following: (654 hours per
respondent * 120 respondents) = 78,480 hours.
    \458\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR 14676 nn.1066
and 1078. We derived our estimate from the following: ($201,000 per
respondent * 120 respondents) = $24,120,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Correction of Errors in Security-Based Swap Information--Rule 905

    Rule 905, as adopted, establishes procedures for correcting errors
in reported and disseminated security-based swap information. The title
of this collection is ``Rule 905--Correction of Errors in Security-
Based Swap Information.''
1. Summary of Collection of Information
    Rule 905 establishes duties for security-based swap counterparties
and registered SDRs to correct errors in information that previously
has been reported.
    Counterparty Reporting Error. Under rule 905(a)(1), where a side
that was not the respondent for a security-based swap transaction
discovers an error in the information reported with respect to such
security-based swap, the counterparty must promptly notify the
respondent of the error. Under rule 905(a)(2), where a respondent for a
security-based swap transaction discovers an error in the information
reported with respect to a security-based swap, or receives
notification from its counterparty of an error, the respondent must
promptly submit to the entity to which the security-based swap was
originally reported an amended report pertaining to the original
transaction. The amended report must be submitted to the registered SDR
in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures of the
registered SDR required pursuant to rule 907(a)(3).
    Duty of Registered SDR to Correct. Rule 905(b) sets forth the
duties of a registered SDR relating to corrections. If the registered
SDR either discovers an error in a transaction on its system or
receives notice of an error from a respondent, rule 905(b)(1) requires
the registered SDR to verify the accuracy of the terms of the security-
based swap and, following such verification, promptly correct the
erroneous information contained in its system. Rule 905(b)(2) further
requires that, if such erroneous information relates to a security-
based swap that the registered SDR previously disseminated and falls
into any of the categories of information enumerated in rule 901(c),
the registered SDR must publicly disseminate a corrected transaction
report of the security-based swap promptly following verification of
the trade by the counterparties to the security-based swap, with an
indication that the report relates to a previously disseminated
transaction.
2. Use of Information
    The security-based swap transaction information required to be
reported pursuant to rule 905 will be used by registered SDRs,
participants of those SDRs, the Commission, and other relevant
authorities. Participants will be able to use such information to
evaluate and manage their own risk positions and satisfy their duties
to report corrected information to a registered SDR. A registered SDR
will need the required information to correct security-based swap
transaction records, in order to maintain an accurate record of a
participant's positions as well as to disseminate corrected
information. The Commission and other relevant authorities will need
the corrected information to have an accurate understanding of the
market for surveillance and oversight purposes.
3. Respondents
    Rule 905 applies to all participants of registered SDRs. As noted
above, we estimated that there would be approximately 300 respondents
that

incur the duty to report security-based swap transactions pursuant to
current rule 901. As noted above, we preliminarily estimate that an
additional 120 respondents would incur the duty to report under the
proposed amendments to Regulation SBSR. Because any of these additional
participants could become aware of errors in their reported transaction
data, we estimate that there may be 120 respondents for purposes of the
proposed amendments.
4. Total Initial and Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burdens
    The duty to promptly submit amended transaction reports to the
appropriate registered SDR after discovery of an error, as required
under rule 905(a)(2), will impose burdens on respondents. The duty to
promptly notify the relevant respondent after discovery of an error, as
required under rule 905(a)(1), will impose burdens on non-reporting
participants.
    With respect to respondents, we preliminarily believe that rule
905(a) will impose an initial, one-time burden associated with
designing and building the respondent's reporting system to be capable
of submitting amended security-based swap transactions to a registered
SDR. We continue to believe that designing and building appropriate
reporting system functionality to comply with rule 905(a)(2) would be a
component of, and represent an incremental ``add-on'' to, the cost to
build a reporting system and develop a compliance function as required
under existing rule 901. Based on discussions with industry
participants, we previously estimated this incremental burden to be
equal to 5% of the one-time and annual burdens associated with
designing and building a reporting system that is in compliance with
rule 901, plus 10% of the corresponding one-time and annual burdens
associated with developing the respondent's overall compliance program
required under rule 901.\459\ This estimate was based on similar
calculations contained in the Regulation SBSR Proposing Release,\460\
updated to reflect new estimates relating to the number of reportable
events and the number of entities with reporting duties. Taking a
similar approach with respect to the proposed amendments to Regulation
SBSR, we estimate that the new respondents would incur, as a result of
rule 905(a), an initial (first-year) aggregate burden of 5,808.7 hours,
which is 48.4 burden hours per respondent,\461\ and an ongoing
aggregate annualized burden of 2,616.7 hours, which is 21.8 burden
hours per respondent.\462\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \459\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR 14682.
    \460\ See Regulation SBSR Proposing Release, 75 FR 75254.
    \461\ This figure is calculated as follows: [(((172 burden hours
for one-time development of reporting system) x (0.05)) + ((0.11
burden hours annual maintenance of reporting system) x (0.05)) +
((180 burden hours one-time compliance program development) x (0.1))
+ ((218 burden hours annual support of compliance program) x (0.1)))
x (120 respondents)] = 5,808.7 burden hours, which is 48.4 burden
hours per respondent.
    \462\ This figure is calculated as follows: [(((0.11 burden
hours annual maintenance of reporting system) x (0.05)) + ((218
burden hours annual support of compliance program) x (0.1))) x (120
respondents)] = 2,616.7 burden hours, which is 21.8 burden hours per
respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily believe that the actual submission of amended
transaction reports required under rule 905(a)(2) would not result in a
material burden because this would be done electronically though the
reporting system that the respondent must develop and maintain to
comply with rule 901. The overall burdens associated with such a
reporting system are addressed in our analysis of rule 901.\463\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \463\ See Section VII.B, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Policies and Procedures for Registered Broker-Dealers--Rule 906(c)

1. Summary of Collection of Information
    The proposed amendments to rule 906(c) would require each
participant that is a registered broker-dealer that becomes a
participant solely as a result of making a report to satisfy an
obligation under proposed rule 901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4) to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable security-based
swap transaction reporting obligations. Each such participant also
would be required to review and update its policies and procedures at
least annually.
2. Use of Information
    The policies and procedures required under the proposed amendments
to rule 906(c) would be used by participants to aid in their compliance
with Regulation SBSR, and also used by the Commission as part of its
ongoing efforts to monitor and enforce compliance with the federal
securities laws, including Regulation SBSR, through, among other
things, examinations and inspections.
3. Respondents
    The proposed amendments to rule 906(c) would result in the rule
applying to registered broker-dealers that are likely to become
participants solely as a result of making a report to satisfy an
obligation under proposed rule 901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4). The Commission
estimates that there would be 30 such registered broker-dealers.
4. Total Initial and Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burdens
    The proposed amendment to rule 906(c) would require each registered
broker-dealer that is likely to become a participant solely as a result
of making a report to satisfy an obligation under proposed rule
901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4) to establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure
compliance with applicable security-based swap transaction reporting
obligations. The proposed amendment to rule 906(c) also would require
each such registered broker-dealer to review and update such policies
and procedures at least annually. We estimate that the one-time,
initial burden for each such registered broker-dealer to adopt written
policies and procedures as required under the proposed amendments to
rule 906(c) would be similar to the rule 906(c) burdens discussed in
the Regulation SBSR Adopting Release for covered participants, and
would be approximately 216 burden hours per registered broker-
dealer.\464\ As discussed in the Regulation SBSR Adopting Release,\465\
this figure is based on the estimated number of hours to develop a set
of written policies and procedures, program systems, implement controls
and oversight, train relevant employees, and perform necessary testing.
In addition, we estimate the burden of maintaining such policies and
procedures, including a full review at least annually would be
approximately 120 burden hours for each registered broker-dealer that
is likely to become a participant solely as a result of making a report
to satisfy an obligation under proposed rule 901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4).\466\
This figure includes an estimate of hours related to

reviewing existing policies and procedures, making necessary updates,
conducting ongoing training, maintaining controls systems, and
performing necessary testing. Accordingly, the Commission estimates
that the initial aggregate annualized burden associated with the
proposed amendments to rule 906(c) would be 10,080 burden hours, which
corresponds to 336 burden hours per registered broker-dealer that is
likely to become a participant solely as a result of making a report to
satisfy an obligation under proposed rule 901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4).\467\ The
Commission estimates that the ongoing aggregate annualized burden
associated with the proposed amendments to rule 906(c) would be 3,600
burden hours, which corresponds to 120 burden hours per registered
broker-dealer that is likely to become a participant solely as a result
of making a report to satisfy an obligation under proposed rule
901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4).\468\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \464\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR 14684. This
figure is based on the following: [(Sr. Programmer at 40 hours) +
(Compliance Manager at 40 hours) + (Compliance Attorney at 40 hours)
+ (Compliance Clerk at 40 hours) + (Sr. Systems Analyst at 32 hours)
+ (Director of Compliance at 24 hours)] = 216 burden hours per
registered broker-dealer that is likely to become a participant
solely as a result of making a report to satisfy an obligation under
proposed rule 901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4).
    \465\ See id.
    \466\ See id. This figure is based on the following: [(Sr.
Programmer at 8 hours) + (Compliance Manager at 24 hours) +
(Compliance Attorney at 24 hours) + (Compliance Clerk at 24 hours) +
(Sr. Systems Analyst at 16 hours) + (Director of Compliance at 24
hours)] = 120 burden hours per registered clearing agency or
platform.
    \467\ This figure is based on the following: [(216 + 120 burden
hours) x (30 registered broker-dealers that are likely to become a
participant solely as a result of making a report to satisfy an
obligation under proposed rule 901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4))] = 10,080 burden
hours.
    \468\ This figure is based on the following: [(120 burden hours)
x (30 registered broker-dealers that are likely to become a
participant solely as a result of making a report to satisfy an
obligation under proposed rule 901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4))] = 3,600 burden
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Collection of Information Is Mandatory

    Each collection of information discussed above is mandatory.

F. Confidentiality of Responses to Collection of Information

    Information collected pursuant to rule 905 would be widely
available to the extent that it corrects information previously
reported pursuant to rule 901(c) and incorporated into security-based
swap transaction reports that are publicly disseminated by a registered
SDR pursuant to rule 902. Most of the information required under rule
902 would be widely available to the public to the extent it is
incorporated into security-based swap transaction reports that are
publicly disseminated by a registered SDR pursuant to rule 902.
However, rule 902(c) prohibits public dissemination of certain kinds of
transactions and certain kinds of transaction information. An SDR,
pursuant to section 13(n)(5) of the Exchange Act and rules 13n-4(b)(8)
and 13n-9 thereunder is required to maintain the privacy of this
security-based swap information. To the extent that we receive
confidential information pursuant to this collection of information, we
anticipate that we will keep such information confidential, subject to
the provisions of applicable law. The proposed amendments to rule
906(c) would require certain registered broker-dealers to establish,
maintain, and enforce certain written policies and procedures. The
collection of information required by rule 906(c) would not be widely
available. To the extent that the Commission receives confidential
information pursuant to this collection of information, we anticipate
that we would keep such information confidential, subject to applicable
law.

G. Request for Comment

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits
comment to:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including
whether the information shall have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information;
    Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; and
     Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    Persons submitting comments on the collection of information
requirements should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and
should also send a copy of their comments to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File Number S7-06-15.
Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard
to this collection of information should be in writing, with reference
to File Number S7-06-15 and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA/PA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549-2736. As OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
collections of information between 30 and 60 days after publication, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.

VIII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA'') \469\ the Commission requests comment on the
potential effect of these proposed amendments on the United States
economy on an annual basis. The Commission also requests comment on any
potential increases in costs or prices for consumers or individual
industries, and any potential effect on competition, investment, or
innovation. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and
other factual support for their views to the extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \469\ Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C. and as a note
to 5 U.S.C. 601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

A. Certification for Proposed Rule and Proposed Amendments to Exchange
Act Rules 3a71-3 and 3a71-5

    Section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (``RFA'')
\470\ requires the Commission to undertake an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis of the impact of the proposed rule amendments on
small entities unless the Commission certifies that the rule, if
adopted, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
``small entities.'' \471\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \470\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \471\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the
RFA,\472\ a small entity includes: (1) When used with reference to an
``issuer'' or a ``person,'' other than an investment company, an
``issuer'' or ``person'' that, on the last day of its most recent
fiscal year, had total assets of $5 million or less; \473\ or (2) a
broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated
liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year
as of which its audited financial statements were prepared pursuant to
Rule 17a-5(d) under the Exchange Act,\474\ or, if not required to file
such statements, a broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus
subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the

last day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the time that it has been
in business, if shorter); and is not affiliated with any person (other
than a natural person) that is not a small business or small
organization.\475\ Under the standards adopted by the Small Business
Administration, small entities in the finance and insurance industry
include the following: (i) For entities engaged in credit
intermediation and related activities, entities with $175 million or
less in assets; \476\ (ii) for entities engaged in non-depository
credit intermediation and certain other activities, entities with $7
million or less in annual receipts; \477\ (iii) for entities engaged in
financial investments and related activities, entities with $7 million
or less in annual receipts; \478\ (iv) for insurance carriers and
entities engaged in related activities, entities with $7 million or
less in annual receipts; \479\ and (v) for funds, trusts, and other
financial vehicles, entities with $7 million or less in annual
receipts.\480\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \472\ Although section 601(b) of the RFA defines the term
``small entity,'' the statute permits agencies to formulate their
own definitions. The Commission has adopted definitions for the term
``small entity'' for the purposes of Commission rulemaking in
accordance with the RFA. Those definitions, as relevant to this
proposed rulemaking, are set forth in Rule 0-10 under the Exchange
Act, 17 CFR 240.0-10. See Exchange Act Release No. 18451 (January,
28, 1982), 47 FR 5215 (February, 4, 1982) (File No. AS-305).
    \473\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
    \474\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d).
    \475\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).
    \476\ See 13 CFR 121.201 (Subsector 522).
    \477\ See id. at Subsector 522.
    \478\ See id. at Subsector 523.
    \479\ See id. at Subsector 524.
    \480\ See id. at Subsector 525.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we stated in the Cross-Border Adopting Release, we continue to
believe that the types of entities that would engage in more than a de
minimis amount of dealing activity involving security-based swaps would
not be ``small entities'' for purposes of the RFA.\481\ Based on
feedback from market participants and our information about the
security-based swap markets, we believe that firms that are likely to
engage in security-based swap dealing activity at levels that may lead
them to perform de minimis calculations under the ``security-based swap
dealer'' definition are large financial institutions that exceed the
thresholds defining ``small entities'' as set forth above. Accordingly,
the Commission preliminarily believes that it is unlikely that the
proposed amendments regarding the registration of security-based swap
dealers would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \481\ See Cross-Border Adopting Release, 79 FR 47368.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission certifies that the
proposed rule and amendments to Exchange Act 3a71-3 and 3a71-5 would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for purposes of the RFA. We encourage written comments
regarding this certification. We request that commenters describe the
nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to
illustrate the extent of the impact.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Proposed Amendments to
Regulation SBSR

    The Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603. This initial Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis relates to the proposed amendments to
Regulation SBSR under the Exchange Act, specifically rules 900, 901,
906, 907, and 908 under the Exchange Act.
1. Reasons for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action and Legal Basis
    The primary reason for, and objective of, the proposed amendments
to Regulation SBSR is to address the application of the regulatory
reporting and public dissemination requirements to certain transactions
not addressed in the Regulation SBSR Adopting Release or the Regulation
SBSR Proposed Amendments Release and to incorporate our revised
approach to transactions of non-U.S. persons who are engaged in dealing
activity from a location in the United States into Regulation SBSR.
Pursuant to Exchange Act sections 13A(a)(1), 13(m)(1)(G), 13(m)(1)(B)-
(D), and 13(n)(5)(D)(ii), the Commission is proposing amendments to
Regulation SBSR regarding the reporting and public dissemination of
certain security-based swap transactions.\482\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \482\ See Section V.E, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed rule 908(a)(1)(v) would require a security-based swap
transaction connected with a non-U.S. person's security-based swap
dealing activity that is arranged, negotiated, or executed by personnel
of such non-U.S. person located in a U.S. branch or office, or by
personnel of such non-U.S. person's agent located in a U.S. branch or
office, to be reported to a registered SDR and publicly disseminated.
Requiring these transactions to be reported to a registered SDR should
enhance our ability to oversee relevant activity related to security-
based swap dealing occurring within the United States as well as our
ability to monitor market participants for compliance with specific
Title VII requirements.\483\ It should also improve our ability to
monitor for manipulative and abusive practices involving security-based
swap transactions or transactions in related underlying assets, such as
corporate bonds or other securities transactions that result from
dealing activity, or other relevant activity, in the U.S. market.\484\
Subjecting these transactions to the public dissemination requirements
of Regulation SBSR should enhance the level of transparency in the U.S.
security-based swap market, potentially reducing implicit transaction
costs and promoting greater price efficiency.\485\ Ensuring that post-
trade information encompasses transactions involving a non-U.S. person
that arranged, negotiated, or executed the security-based swap in
connection with its dealing activity using personnel (personnel of an
agent) located in a U.S. branch or office, could increase price
competition and price efficiency in the security-based swap market and
should enable all market participants to have more comprehensive
information with which to make trading and valuation
determinations.\486\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \483\ See section V.E.2(a), supra.
    \484\ Id.
    \485\ See id. and note 325, supra.
    \486\ See section V.E.2(a), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed rule 908(a)(1)(iii) would require a security-based swap
transaction that is executed on a platform having its principal place
of business in the United States to be reported to a registered SDR and
publicly disseminated pursuant to Regulation SBSR. Requiring these
security-based swaps to be reported to a registered SDR would permit
the Commission and other relevant authorities to observe, in a
registered SDR, all transactions executed on such a platform and to
carry out oversight of such security-based swaps. Furthermore, we
preliminarily believe that public dissemination of such transactions
would have value to participants in the U.S. security-based swap
market, who are likely to trade the same or similar products, as these
products would have been listed by a platform having its principal
place of business in the United States.\487\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \487\ See section V.E.2(b), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed rule 908(a)(1)(iv) would require a security-based swap
transaction that is effected by or through a registered broker-dealer
(including a registered SB SEF) to be reported to a registered SDR and
publicly disseminated pursuant to Regulation SBSR. Under proposed rule
908(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4), the registered broker-dealer would be required to
report the transaction if neither side includes a U.S. person, a
registered security-based swap dealer, a registered major security-
based swap participant, or a non-U.S. person who arranged, negotiated,
or executed the security-based swap from a location in the United
States. Registered broker-dealers play a key role

as intermediaries in the U.S. financial markets. To improve integrity
and transparency in those markets, we believe that it is important that
the Commission, and other relevant authorities, have ready access to
detailed information about the security-based swap transactions that
such persons intermediate. Furthermore, we preliminarily believe that
public dissemination of such transactions would have value to
participants in the U.S. security-based swap market, who are likely to
trade the same or similar products.\488\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \488\ See section V.E.2(c), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Small Entities Subject to the Proposed Rules
    For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, a
small entity includes: (1) When used with reference to an ``issuer'' or
a ``person,'' other than an investment company, an ``issuer'' or
``person'' that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had
total assets of $5 million or less; \489\ or (2) a broker-dealer with
total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than
$500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited
financial statements were prepared pursuant to Exchange Act rule 17a-
5(d),\490\ or, if not required to file such statements, a broker-dealer
with total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less
than $500,000 on the last day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the
time that it has been in business, if shorter); and is not affiliated
with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small
business or small organization.\491\ Under the standards adopted by the
Small Business Administration, small entities in the finance and
insurance industry include the following: (i) For entities engaged in
credit intermediation and related activities, entities with $175
million or less in assets; \492\ (ii) for entities engaged in non-
depository credit intermediation and certain other activities, entities
with $7 million or less in annual receipts; \493\ (iii) for entities
engaged in financial investments and related activities, entities with
$7 million or less in annual receipts; \494\ (iv) for insurance
carriers and entities engaged in related activities, entities with $7
million or less in annual receipts; \495\ and (v) for funds, trusts,
and other financial vehicles, entities with $7 million or less in
annual receipts.\496\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \489\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
    \490\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d).
    \491\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).
    \492\ See 13 CFR 121.201 (Subsector 522).
    \493\ See id. at Subsector 522.
    \494\ See id. at Subsector 523.
    \495\ See id. at Subsector 524.
    \496\ See id. at Subsector 525.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the Regulation SBSR Proposed Amendments Release, we
believe, based on input from security-based swap market participants,
that the majority of security-based swap transactions have at least one
counterparty that is either a security-based swap dealer or major
security-based swap participant, and that these entities--whether
registered broker-dealers or not--would exceed the thresholds defining
``small entities'' set out above.\497\ For this reason, we continue to
believe that the majority of proposed amendments to Regulation SBSR
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities for purposes of the RFA. However, the proposed
amendments would require registered broker-dealers (including a
registered SB SEF) to report a security-based swap transaction that is
effected by or through it. As noted above, we estimate that 30
registered broker-dealers (including registered SB SEFs) may be
required to report such transactions,\498\ though we are not able to
estimate the number of these registered broker-dealers that would be
``small entities.'' Given the nature of the security-based swap market,
we preliminarily believe that it is unlikely that these registered
broker-dealers would be small entities, though we request comment on
the number of registered broker-dealers that are small entities that
would be impacted by our proposed amendments, including any available
empirical data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \497\ See Regulation SBSR Proposed Amendments Release, 80 FR
14801. See also Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR 14727-28.
    \498\ See section VII.B.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
    As discussed above, the proposed amendments to Regulation SBSR
would require a security-based swap transaction that is effected by or
through a registered broker-dealer (including a registered SB SEF) to
be reported to a registered SDR by the registered broker-dealer if
neither side of the security-based swap transaction includes a U.S.
person, a registered security-based swap dealer, a registered major
security-based swap participant, or a non-U.S. person who arranged,
negotiated, or executed the security-based swap from a location in the
United States. We preliminarily believe, as discussed above, that
registered broker-dealers (including registered SB SEFs) would incur
certain assessment costs associated with performing an analysis of
their clients (in the case of registered-broker dealers) and members
(in the case of registered SB SEFs) \499\ to determine whose trades
they are obligated to report under the proposed rules, which would be
supported by systems that would record and maintain this information
over time.\500\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \499\ See section VI.A.1, supra.
    \500\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, under the proposed amendments to rule 906(c), these
registered broker-dealers would be required to establish, maintain, and
enforce policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure
that the registered broker-dealer complies with any obligations to
report information to a registered security-based swap data repository
in a manner consistent with Regulation SBSR. Further, these registered
broker-dealers would be required to review these policies and
procedures at least annually.\501\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \501\ See section VI.B.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Duplicative, Overlapping or Conflicting Federal Rules
    The Commission believes there are no rules that duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the proposed amendments.
5. Significant Alternatives
    Pursuant to section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,\502\
the Commission must consider certain types of alternatives, including:
(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements
or timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part of the rule,
for small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \502\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to require registered broker-dealers (including
registered SB SEFs) to report security-based swap transactions that are
effected by or through it if neither side of the security-based swap
transaction includes a U.S. person, a registered security-based swap
dealer, a registered major security-based swap participant, or a non-
U.S. person who arranged, negotiated, or executed the security-based
swap from a location in the United States. The proposed amendments
would enable the Commission to gain a better understanding of the
security-based swap market, including the size and

scope that market, and should enable us to identify exposure to risks
undertaken by individual market participants or at various levels of
aggregation, as well as credit exposures that arise between
counterparties.\503\ The regulatory data collected as a result of the
proposed amendments would enable us to conduct robust monitoring of the
security-based swap market for potential risks to financial
stability.\504\ The Commission considered whether it is necessary or
appropriate to establish different compliance and reporting
requirements under the rule; or clarify, consolidate, or simplify the
compliance and reporting requirements for small entities under the
rule. Because the proposed rule amendments would enhance the
Commission's ability to oversee relevant activity related to security-
based swap dealing occurring within the United States, our ability to
monitor market participants for compliance with specific Title VII
requirements, and our ability to monitor for manipulative and abusive
practices involving security-based swap transactions, we preliminarily
believe that small entities should be covered by the proposed
amendments to Regulation SBSR. We preliminarily believe that
establishing different compliance or reporting requirements for small
entities, or exempting small entities from the proposed amendments
could complicate the rules and potentially create gaps in the
regulatory data that is reported and publicly disseminated that would
be inconsistent with the goals of Title VII and the proposed
amendments. Additionally, we do not consider performance rather than
design standards to be consistent with the statutory mandate requiring
reporting of security-based swaps to registered SDRs and the public
dissemination of transaction and pricing data to enhance price
discovery of security-based swaps.\505\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \503\ See Section VI.B.3, supra.
    \504\ See Section VI.B.3, supra.
    \505\ See Exchange Act sections 13(m)(1)(G) and 13(m)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Solicitation of Comment
    We are soliciting comments regarding this analysis. We request
comment on the number of small entities that would be subject to the
amendments and whether the proposed amendments would have any effects
that have not been discussed. We request that commenters describe the
nature of any effects on small entities subject to the amendments and
provide empirical data to support the nature and extent of the effects.

X. Statutory Basis and Text of Proposed Rules

    Pursuant to the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., and
particularly, Sections 3(b), 23(a)(1), 3C(e), 11A(b), 13(m)(1), 13A(a),
17(a), and 30(c) thereof, Sections 712(a)(2), (6), and 761(b) of the
Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC is proposing to amend rules 3a71-3 and 3a71-5,
and 900, 901, 906, 907 and 908, under the Exchange Act.

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 240

    Brokers, Confidential business information, Fraud, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Part 242

    Brokers, Fraud, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

Text of Proposed Rules

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the SEC is proposing to
amend Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of the Federal Regulations as
follows:

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

0
1. The general authority citation for part 240 continues to read, and a
sectional authority is added in numerical order to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f,
78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4,
78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20,
80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, and 7201 et seq., and
8302; 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E); 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 18 U.S.C. 1350; and
Pub. L. 111-203, 939A, 124 Stat. 1376, (2010) unless otherwise
noted.
* * * * *
    Sections 3a71-3 and 3a71-5 are also issued under Pub. L. 111-
203, sections 712, 761(b), 124 Stat. 1754 (2010), and 15 U.S.C.
78dd(c).
* * * * *
0
2. Sec.  240.3a71-3 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(9);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  240.3a71-3  Cross-border security-based swap dealing activity.

    (a) * * *
    (6) U.S. security-based swap dealer means a security-based swap
dealer, as defined in section 3(a)(71) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(71)), and the rules and regulations thereunder, that is a U.S.
person.
    (7) Foreign security-based swap dealer means a security-based swap
dealer, as defined in section 3(a)(71) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(71)), and the rules and regulations thereunder, that is not a
U.S. person.
    (8) U.S. business means:
    (i) With respect to a foreign security-based swap dealer:
    (A) Any security-based swap transaction entered into, or offered to
be entered into, by or on behalf of such foreign security-based swap
dealer, with a U.S. person (other than a transaction conducted through
a foreign branch of that person); or
    (B) Any security-based swap transaction arranged, negotiated, or
executed by personnel of the foreign security-based swap dealer located
in a U.S. branch or office, or by personnel of an agent of the foreign
security-based swap dealer located in a U.S. branch or office; and
    (ii) With respect to a U.S. security-based swap dealer, any
transaction by or on behalf of such U.S. security-based swap dealer,
wherever entered into or offered to be entered into, other than a
transaction conducted through a foreign branch with a non-U.S. person
or with a U.S.-person counterparty that constitutes a transaction
conducted through a foreign branch of the counterparty.
    (9) Foreign business means security-based swap transactions that
are entered into, or offered to be entered into, by or on behalf of, a
foreign security-based swap dealer or a U.S. security-based swap
dealer, other than the U.S. business of such person.
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) Security-based swap transactions connected with such person's
security-based swap dealing activity that are arranged, negotiated, or
executed by personnel of such non-U.S. person located in a U.S. branch
or office, or by personnel of an agent of such non-U.S. person located
in a U.S. branch or office; and
* * * * *
    (c) Application of customer protection requirements. A registered
foreign security-based swap dealer and a registered U.S. security-based
swap dealer, with respect to their foreign business, shall not be
subject to the requirements relating to business conduct standards
described in section 15F(h) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(h)), and the
rules and regulations thereunder, other than the rules and regulations
prescribed by the Commission pursuant to section 15F(h)(1)(B) of the
Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(h)(1)(B)).

0
3. Sec.  240.3a71-5 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  240.3a71-5  Exception for cleared transactions executed on a swap
execution facility.

* * * * *
    (c) The exceptions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall
not apply to any security-based swap transactions of a non-U.S. person
connected with its security-based swap dealing activity that are
arranged, negotiated, or executed by personnel of such non-U.S. person
located in a U.S. branch or office, or by personnel of an agent of such
non-U.S. person located in a U.S. branch or office.
* * * * *

PART 242--REGULATIONS M, SHO, ATS, AC, NMS, AND SCI AND CUSTOMER
MARGIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY FUTURES

0
4. The authority citation for part 242 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a), 78b, 78c, 78g(c)(2),
78i(a), 78j, 78k-l(c), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(b), 78o(c), 78o(g),
78q(a), 78q(b), 78q(h), 78w(a), 78dd-1, 78mm, 80a-23, 80a-29, and
80a-37.
0
5. Sec.  242.900 is further amended, as proposed at 80 FR 14801 (March
19, 2015), by:
0
a. In paragraph (u)(3), removing the period and adding in its place ``;
or''; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (u)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  242.900  Definitions

* * * * *
    (u) * * *
    (4) A registered broker-dealer (including a registered security-
based swap execution facility) that is required to report a security-
based swap to that registered security-based swap data repository by
Sec.  242.901(a).
* * * * *
0
6. Sec.  242.901 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(E)(2) through (4); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(9).
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  242.901  Reporting obligations.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (E) * * *
    (2) If one side includes a non-U.S. person that falls within Sec.
242.908(b)(5) or a U.S. person and the other side includes a non-U.S.
person that falls within rule Sec.  242.908(b)(5), the sides shall
select the reporting side.
    (3) If one side includes only non-U.S. persons that do not fall
within Sec.  242.908(b)(5) and the other side includes a non-U.S.
person that falls within rule Sec.  242.908(b)(5) or a U.S. person, the
side including a non-U.S. person that falls within rule Sec.
242.908(b)(5) or a U.S. person shall be the reporting side.
    (4) If neither side includes a U.S. person and neither side
includes a non-U.S. person that falls within Sec.  242.908(b)(5) but
the security-based swap is effected by or through a registered broker-
dealer (including a registered security-based swap execution facility),
the registered broker-dealer (including a registered security-based
swap execution facility) shall report the information required by
Sec. Sec.  242.901(c) and 242.901(d).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) The platform ID, if applicable, or if a registered broker-
dealer (including a registered security-based swap execution facility)
is required to report the security-based swap by Sec.
242.901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4), the broker ID of that registered broker-dealer
(including a registered security-based swap execution facility);
* * * * *
0
7. Sec.  242.906 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:

Sec.  242.906  Other duties of participants.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Duty to provide ultimate parent and affiliate information. Each
participant of a registered security-based swap data repository that is
not a platform, a registered clearing agency, or a registered broker-
dealer (including a registered security-based swap execution facility)
that becomes a participant solely as a result of making a report to
satisfy an obligation under Sec.  242.901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4) shall provide
to the registered security-based swap data repository information
sufficient to identify its ultimate parent(s) and any affiliate(s) of
the participant that also are participants of the registered security-
based swap data repository, using ultimate parent IDs and counterparty
IDs. Any such participant shall promptly notify the registered
security-based swap data repository of any changes to that information.
    (c) Policies and procedures to support reporting compliance. Each
participant of a registered security-based swap data repository that is
a security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant,
registered clearing agency, registered broker-dealer (including a
registered security-based swap execution facility) that becomes a
participant solely as a result of making a report to satisfy an
obligation under Sec.  242.901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4), or platform shall
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that
are reasonably designed to ensure that it complies with any obligations
to report information to a registered security-based swap data
repository in a manner consistent with Sec. Sec.  242.900 through
242.909. Each such participant shall review and update its policies and
procedures at least annually.
* * * * *
0
8. Sec.  242.907 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec.  242.907  Policies and procedures of registered security-based
swap data repositories.

    (a) * * *
    (6) For periodically obtaining from each participant other than a
platform, a registered clearing agency, or a registered broker-dealer
(including a registered security-based swap execution facility) that
becomes a participant solely as a result of making a report to satisfy
an obligation under Sec.  242.901(a)(2)(ii)(E)(4) information that
identifies the participant's ultimate parent(s) and any participant(s)
with which the participant is affiliated, using ultimate parent IDs and
counterparty IDs.
* * * * *
0
9. Sec.  242.908 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) through
(v); and is further amended as proposed at 80 FR 14801 (March 19,
2015), by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  242.908  Cross-border matters.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The security-based swap is executed on a platform having its
principal place of business in the United States;
    (iv) The security-based swap is effected by or through a registered
broker-dealer (including a registered security-based swap execution
facility); or
    (v) The transaction is connected with a non-U.S. person's security-
based swap dealing activity and is arranged, negotiated, or executed by
personnel of such non-U.S. person located in a U.S. branch or office,
or by personnel of an agent of such non-U.S. person located in a U.S.
branch or office.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) A non-U.S. person that, in connection with such person's
security-based swap dealing activity, arranged, negotiated, or executed
the security-based swap using its personnel located in a U.S. branch or
office, or using

personnel of an agent located in a U.S. branch or office.

    By the Commission.
    Dated: April 29, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10382 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41459-41462]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0448; Directorate Identifier 2013-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 adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R,
and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and
Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
report of early ruptures on the levers of the nose landing gear (NLG)
sequence valve. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection
for damage of the landing gear sequence valve levers and pin shearing
indicating areas on the NLG and the main landing gears (MLGs); and
depending on findings, replacing the sequence valve and lever, or doing
a one-time inspection to detect interference between control rods and
sequence valves and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to detect and correct interference between a landing gear leg
and door, which could result in failure of that landing gear to extend
and could damage the airplane and injure occupants.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 2,
2014.

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 proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; 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-2014-
0448; or in person at the Docket Operations office 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: Dan Rodina, 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-2014-0448;
Directorate Identifier 2013-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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0058, dated March 11, 2013 (referred to
after

this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300
series airplanes; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series
airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively
called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Airbus Model A310 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Operators have reported five cases of early ruptures on levers
of the nose landing gear (NLG) sequence valve.
    Analysis showed that these fatigue ruptures were due to an
incorrect adjustment of the mechanical links. As the design of the
main landing gear (MLG) sequence valve lever is similar, there is
sufficient reason to assume that these parts are similarly affected
by fatigue.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
interference between landing gear leg and door and consequent
failure of the landing gear to extend, possibly resulting in damage
to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection of the sequence valve control lever [for damage,
which could include cracking or deformation], of the adjustment of
the control rod between doors and landing gear sequence valve and
depending on inspections results, accomplishment of applicable
corrective actions.

The corrective actions include adjusting the control rod between the
door and the sequence valves; adjusting mechanical linkages; and
replacing/installing a serviceable valve and lever. 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-2014-0448.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletins:
     A300-32-0464, dated July 17, 2012 (for Model A300
airplanes);
     A300-32-6110, dated July 17, 2012 (for Model A300-600
airplanes); and
     A310-32-2146, dated July 17, 2012 (for Model A310
airplanes).

The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the other NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and
retitled it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now
clarifies that for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished
using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S.
registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 4 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 $43,520, or $340
per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take up to 9 work-hours and require parts costing up to $42,000, for a
cost of $42,765 per product. We have no way of determining the number
of aircraft that might need these actions.

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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0448; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
055-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 2, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-
103, and B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R,
B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of early ruptures on the levers
of the nose landing gear (NLG) sequence valve. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct interference between a landing gear leg and
door, which could result in failure of that landing gear to extend,
and could damage the airplane and injure occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Service Information

    Do the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD in
accordance with the applicable service information identified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For Model A300 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-
0464, dated July 17, 2012.
    (2) For Model A300-600 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
32-6110, dated July 17, 2012.
    (3) For Model A310 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-32-
2146, dated July 17, 2012.

(h) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Within 4,000 flight cycles, 6,000 flight hours, or 30 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a
detailed inspection of each sequence valve lever and pin shearing
indicating area on the nose landing gear and main landing gears for
any damage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of
this AD. Do the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of
this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this
AD.
    (1) If damage is found, before further flight, replace the
affected sequence valve and its lever with a serviceable sequence
valve and lever. No further action is required by paragraph (h) of
this AD for that replaced valve and lever.
    (2) If no damage is found, within the compliance time required
by paragraph (h) of this AD, do a detailed inspection to detect
interference between the landing gear door control rod and the
landing gear sequence valve, and do all applicable corrective
actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
No further action is required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (3) For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: An
intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly
to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is
normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an
intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and
elaborate procedures may be required.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane a landing gear sequence valve, unless that valve has
been inspected and corrected, as applicable, in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.

(j) 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: Dan Rodina,
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: 9-ANM-116-

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness
Directive 2013-0058, dated March 11, 2013, 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 it in Docket No.
FAA-2014-0448.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; 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 July 3, 2014.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-16690 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45920-45921]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18261]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-1483-001.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to June 29, 2012 Market Power Analyses
Report of Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130617-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1483-003, ER10-2386-002; ER10-1823-002; ER10-
1462-002; ER10-1996-002; ER10-1802-001; ER10-2413-002; ER10-2309-002;
ER10-1917-002; ER13-1403-002; ER10-2458-002; ER10-2468-003.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Fairless Energy, LLC,
Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc., Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC,
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Dominion Retail, Inc., Dominion Energy
Manchester Street, Inc., Kincaid Generation, L.L.C., Elwood Energy,
LLC, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell,
LLC, NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to June 29, 2012 Market Power
Analyses Report of Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 6/28/13.
    Accession Number: 20130628-5319.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-101-003.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 07-22-13 ATCLLC Order 1000 Compliance to be effective
12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130722-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-198-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Order 1000 Compliance filing per 3/22/2013 Order
in Docket No. ER13-198-000 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130722-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-690-003.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Attachment H Compliance Filing to be effective 8/2/
2011.
    Filed Date: 7/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130722-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-690-004.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits
Attachment H Compliance to be effective 8/2/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1366-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits Gallup
Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1631-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Errata to June 4, 2013 Request for Waiver of certain
tariff provisions of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 7/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130722-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1747-001.
    Applicants: eBay Inc.
    Description: eBay Inc. submits Amendment to MBR Application to be
effective 8/26/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2000-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: 2013-7-22--CAPX--LaX-MN--CMA-557-0.0.0-Filing to be
effective 12/21/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130722-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2001-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position Y1-057; Original Service Agreement No.
3602 to be effective 6/21/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130722-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2002-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: 2013-7-22--CAPX-LaX-MN-OMA-558-0.0.0-Filing to be
effective 12/21/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130722-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2003-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: 2013-7-22--CAPX--LaX-MN--TCEA-559-0.0.0--Filing to be
effective 12/21/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130722-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2004-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: 2013-7-22--LaX-WI-TCEA-Concur-to-559-0.0.0--Filing to
be effective 12/21/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130722-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2005-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2013-07-22 OASIS Errata Compliance to be effective 4/
15/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2006-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
    Description: Cancellation of DEF Rate Schedule No. 167 to be
effective 9/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2007-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: First Revised Service Agreement No. 3396; Queue No.
V4-009 to be effective 3/4/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2008-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 07-23-13 SA 2525 SMEPA to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2009-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Progress, Inc. submits Notice of
Cancellation of 2004 NITSA with French Broad EMC.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2010-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporation, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated et al
submits Revised OATT Attachment H-21A to be effective 9/21/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2011-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2220R2 Broken Bow Wind II, LLC GIA to be effective 6/
24/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/13.

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

    Dated: July 23, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18261 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76314-76315]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC15-53-000.
    Applicants: All Dams Generation, LLC, Lake Lynn Generation, LLC, PE
Hydro Generation, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, and
Expedited Action of All Dams Generation, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5311.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-366-005.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 Compliance
Revisions--ER13-366-002 and ER13-366-003 to be effective 3/30/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-596-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Report Filing: Errata to Transmittal Letter in Docket
No. ER15-596-000 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-633-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Revisions to Attach AE (MPL) Addendum 1--VRL and Market-to-Market
Coordination to be effective 3/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-634-000.
    Applicants: Cottonwood Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Baseline--Cottonwood
Solar, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-635-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): KEPCo
Revision to Attachment A--Points of Receipt to be effective 1/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20141215-5283.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-636-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Kaw
Valley Electric Cooperative, Revision-Attachment A, Points of Receipt
to be effective 1/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20141216-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-637-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service
Agreement No. 3183; Queue No. W3-029 to be effective 11/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20141216-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

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

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29898 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P