[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70978-70980]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26844]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0534; FRL-9218-01-OCSPP]

Trichoderma harzianum Strain T-78; Exemption From the Requirement
of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78 in or
on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions
and good agricultural practices. Symborg, Inc. submitted a petition to
EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78 under FFDCA when used in
accordance with this exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 14, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 14, 2022
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0534, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room are closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0534 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 14, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although EPA
strongly encourages those interested in submitting objections or a
hearing request to submit objections and hearing requests
electronically. See Order Urging Electronic Service and Filing (April
10, 2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf.
At this time, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the judges and staff of
the Office of Administrative Law Judges are working remotely and not
able to accept filings or correspondence by courier, personal delivery,
or commercial delivery, and the ability to receive filings or
correspondence by U.S. Mail is similarly limited. When submitting
documents to the U.S. EPA Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), a
person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_upload.nsf.
    Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand
delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means
as properly filed submissions during this time that the Agency
continues to maximize telework due to the pandemic; therefore, EPA
believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be
prejudicial. If it is impossible for a person to submit documents
electronically or receive service electronically, e.g., the person does
not have any access to a computer, the person shall so advise OALJ by
contacting the Hearing Clerk at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If a person is without
access to a computer and must file documents by U.S. Mail, the person
shall notify the Hearing Clerk every time it files a document in such a
manner. The address for mailing documents is U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Administrative Law Judges, Mail Code
1900R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0534, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of September 22, 2021 (86 FR 52624) (FRL-
8792-03), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
exemption petition (PP 0F8852) by Symborg, Inc., P.O. Box 12810, San
Luis Obispo, CA 93406. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the fungicide Trichoderma harzianum strain T-
78 in or on all food commodities. That notice referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by the petitioner Symborg, Inc. and available in
the docket via https://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received
on the notice of filing.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and
to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)
requires that EPA consider ``available information concerning the
cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on
Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78 and considered their validity,
completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this
information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which
EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found
within the document entitled ``Microbial Human Health Risk Assessment
for Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78''. This document, as well as
other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action
as described under ADDRESSES.
    The available data demonstrated that, with regard to humans,
Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78 is not toxic, pathogenic, or
infective via the injection route of exposure; is not toxic,
pathogenic, or infective via the oral route of exposure; is not toxic,
pathogenic, or infective via the pulmonary route of exposure; and is
not expected to be toxic via oral, dermal, or inhalation routes of
exposure based on the data presented in the three toxicity/
pathogenicity studies. Additionally, all three of the toxicity/
pathogenicity studies demonstrated a pattern of clearance of
Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78 from the blood and organs of the test
animals. Based on the lack of adverse effects seen in the available
toxicity/pathogenicity data, EPA did not identify any points of
departure for assessing risk; thus, no quantitative risk assessment was
conducted. Significant dietary and non-occupational exposures to
residues of Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78 are not anticipated
because it will be used only as a soil-directed treatment and it is not
expected to remain at high levels on plant surfaces or readily
percolate through soil before reaching ground water. Even if dietary
and non-occupational exposures to residues of Trichoderma harzianum
strain T-78 were to occur, there is no concern due to the lack of
potential for adverse effects. Because there are no threshold levels of
concern with the toxicity, pathogenicity, or infectivity of Trichoderma
harzianum strain T-78, EPA determined that no additional margin of
safety is necessary to protect infants and children as part of the
qualitative assessment conducted. Based upon its evaluation in the
Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78 Human Health Assessment, which
concludes that there are no risks of concern from aggregate exposure to
Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78, EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population,
including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for Trichoderma harzianum
strain T-78 because EPA is establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78 in or on
all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and
good agricultural practices.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food

retailers, not States or Tribes. As a result, this action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section
408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a
substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal
Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132,
entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive
Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to
this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 6, 2021.
Edward Messina,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Add Sec.  180.1390 to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1390  Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78 in or on all food
commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good
agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2021-26844 Filed 12-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 86067]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0397]

Commercial Driver's License: Oregon Department of Transportation;
Application for Exemption, Correction

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published its
decision in the Federal Register of April 5, 2016, to grant the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) and all other State Driver
Licensing Agencies (SDLAs), a limited exemption from the commercial
learner's permit (CLP) requirement in 49 CFR 383.25(c). Due to an
error, the exemption was not extended to include the CLP requirement in
49 CFR 383.73(a)(2)(iii). Today's correction makes it clear that the
exemption granted to ODOT and other SDLAs from the CLP requirements
includes 49 CFR 383.25(c) and 49 CFR 383.73(a)(2)(iii).

DATES: Effective on November 29, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 5, 2016, correct pages 19703 and
19705 as follows: On page 19703 in the first column, correct the
Summary first sentence to read, ``FMCSA announces its decision to grant
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) a limited exemption from
the commercial learner's permit (CLP) requirements in 49 CFR 383.25(c)
and 49 CFR 383.73(a)(2)(iii).'' On page 19705 in the first column,
correct Section V. FMCSA Response and Decision first sentence to read,
``The FMCSA has evaluated ODOT's application on its merits following
full consideration of the comments submitted to the docket, and has
decided to grant the exemption from 49 CFR 383.25(c) and 49 CFR
383.73(a)(2)(iii) for a period of 2 years.''

    Issued on: November 22, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-28685 Filed 11-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48690-48692]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19900]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86910; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 4.10(b) Regarding the Notice Requirement in Connection With
Trading Permit Holders That Clear Market-Maker Trades

September 10, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 5, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as
a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend Rule 4.10(b) regarding the notice requirement in connection
with Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') that clear Market-Maker trades.
The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to remove the Rule 4.10(b)(2) requirement
that the Exchange issue monthly notices regarding a Trading Permit
Holder's (``TPH's'') proportion of market making clearing business to
TPHs that clear Market-Maker trades.
    Current Rule 4.10 generally provides for restrictions that the
Exchange may place on ``TPHs'' that have failed to perform their
contracts, are insolvent or in such financial or operational condition
or otherwise conducting business in such a manner that they cannot be
permitted to continue in business with safety to their customers or
creditors or the Exchange. Current Rule 4.10(b) applies specifically to
TPHs that clear Market-Maker trades. Rule 4.10(b)(2) provides that
proposed Significant Business Transactions (``SBTs'') \5\ of such TPHs
are subject to prior approval of the Chief Executive Officer (``CEO'')
or President of the Exchange, when the TPHs' Market-Maker clearance
activities exceed, or would exceed, as a result of the proposed SBT:
15% of cleared Exchange Market-Maker contract volume for the most
recent three months; an average of 15% of the number of Exchange
registered Market-Makers as of each month and for the most recent three
months; or 25% of Market-Maker gross deductions (haircuts) defined by
SEC Rule 15c3-1(a)(6) or (c)(2)(x) carried by the Clearing Trading
Permit Holder(s) in relation to the aggregate of such haircuts carried
by all other Market-Maker clearing organizations for any month end
within the most recent three months. Current Rule 4.10(b)(2) also
provides that the Exchange must notify in writing each TPH that clears
Market-Maker trades within 10 business days from the close of each
month of that TPH's proportion of the market making clearing business,
whether or not such business exceeds the parameters listed above. The
Exchange now proposes to remove this Exchange notification requirement
from Rule 4.10(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 4.10(b)(1)(i)-(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange has determined that its administrative
burden to proactively produce monthly notices, whether or not a Market-
Maker clearing TPH's business exceeds the paragraph (b)(2) parameters,
greatly exceeds the benefit in administering monthly notices due to the
limited number of SBTs actually filed with the Exchange per year. The
Exchange also notes that because proposed SBTs are infrequent, the
receipt of monthly notices is not an integral part of a TPH's financial
and operational maintenance on a month-to-month basis. If a Market-
Maker clearing TPH anticipates an SBT that may require prior Exchange
approval, then the TPH may contact the Exchange to determine whether
the TPH exceeds the parameters. The proposed rule change makes this
explicit in the rule. As a result, the Exchange believes that removing
the current notice requirement from Rule 4.10(b)(2) will remove
burdensome Exchange procedures without impacting the ability of a
Market-Maker clearing TPH to assess its clearance activities in light
of an SBT or to continue to conduct business on the Exchange.
    The restrictions that Rule 4.10 imposes on TPHs will continue to
apply. The Exchange notes that removing this administrative burden will
also enable the Exchange to better allocate its regulatory resources,
focusing on the overall monitoring of TPH business and satisfaction of
these restrictions to ensure adequate financial and operational
capabilities to continue to perform contracts and otherwise conduct
business safely for customers, creditors, and the Exchange.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that the corresponding rules of other
options exchanges currently do not contain a provision that requires
such exchanges to send monthly notice to clearing members or otherwise
indicate to their clearing members that they exceed, or may exceed,
substantially similar criteria on the respective exchanges as a result
of an SBT.\6\ Such corresponding rules of other options exchanges have
previously been filed with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NASDAQ Options Rules Chapter 3, Sec. 15; NASDAQ BX
Options Rules Chapter 3, Sec. 15; MIAX Options Rule 306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and national market system, and generally protect investors.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that by removing an administrative
burden in producing monthly notices for all Market-Maker clearing TPHs
that greatly outweighs the benefit of such notices, due to the
infrequent number of SBTs per year, the Exchange will be able to
reallocate regulatory resources to focus on the overall monitoring of
TPH business and

satisfaction of the Rule 4.10 restrictions that continue to apply to
ensure adequate financial and operational capabilities to continue to
perform contracts and otherwise conduct business safely for market
participants, thereby protecting market participants. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed rule change does not impact a Market-Maker
clearing TPH's regular financial or operational maintenance or ability
to assess and conduct a SBT because SBTs occur infrequently. The
proposed rule change makes it clear that if a Market-Maker clearing TPH
anticipates an SBT that may require prior Exchange approval, then the
TPH may contact the Exchange to determine whether the TPH exceeds the
parameters under Rule 4.10(b)(2). In addition to this, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not present any new or
unique issues for clearing TPHs because the rules of other options
exchanges, which have substantially similar SBT parameters and have
previously been filed with the Commission, do not require the exchanges
to provide monthly notices to their members regarding their proportion
of market making clearing business or otherwise indicate to their
members that they exceed, or may exceed, SBT parameters.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. In particular, the proposed
rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is
concerned with facilitating less burdensome and more efficient
regulatory administration. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any intramarket competition, because
all Market-Maker clearing TPHs are free to contact the Exchange to
determine its standing in regard to the SBT parameters. The proposed
rule change does not change the restrictions imposed on these TPHs,
which will continue to apply to Market-Maker Clearing TPHs in the same
manner. Further, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intermarket competition because the rules of
other options exchanges, which have been previously filed with the
Commission, provide for substantially similar parameters in connection
with the impact of a clearing member's SBTs but do not contain a
provision that requires such exchanges to send monthly notice to
clearing members or otherwise indicate to their clearing members that
they exceed such criteria.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2019-055 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-055. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-055 and should be submitted on
or before October 7, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19900 Filed 9-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 205 (Thursday, October 22, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67293-67294]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22323]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R05-RCRA-2018-0376; FRL-10015-30-Region 5]

Indiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final authorization.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting Indiana
final authorization for changes to its hazardous waste program under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Agency published
a proposed rule on May 6, 2020, and provided for public comment. No
comments were received on the proposed revisions. No further
opportunity for comment will be provided.

DATES: This final authorization is effective October 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2018-0376. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Gromnicki, Indiana Regulatory
Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, LL-17J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. What changes to Indiana's hazardous waste program is EPA authorizing
with this action?

    On, January 23, 2020, Indiana submitted a complete program revision
application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste
program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA now makes a final
decision that Indiana's hazardous waste program revisions that are
being authorized are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. For a list
of State rules being authorized with this final authorization, please
see the proposed rule published in the May 6, 2020, Federal Register at
85 FR 26911.

B. What is codification and is EPA codifying the Indiana's hazardous
waste program as authorized in this action?

    Codification is the process of placing citations and references to
the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's
authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal
Regulations. EPA does this by adding those citations and references to
the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not codifying the
authorization of Indiana's revisions at this time. However, EPA
reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart P, for the
authorization of Indiana's program changes at a later date.

C. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final authorization revises Indiana's authorized hazardous
waste management program pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA and imposes
no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. For
further information on how this authorization complies with applicable
Executive orders and statutory provisions, please see the proposed rule
published in the May 6, 2020, Federal Register at 85 FR 26911. The
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
final action will be effective October 22, 2020.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: October 2, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-22323 Filed 10-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63136-63141]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3989; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-250-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 A318; A319; A320; and A321 series airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by reports of premature aging of certain passenger
chemical oxygen generators that resulted in the generators failing to
activate. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if
certain passenger chemical oxygen generators are installed and
replacement of affected passenger chemical oxygen generators. We are
proposing this AD to prevent failure of the passenger chemical oxygen
generator to activate and consequently not deliver oxygen during an
emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the airplane occupants.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 3,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 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 Airbus service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 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.
    For B/E Aerospace service information identified in this proposed
AD, contact B/E Aerospace Inc., 10800 Pflumm Road, Lenexa, KS 66215;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://beaerospace.com/home/globalsupport.
    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-2015-
3989; 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: Sanjay Ralhan, 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-2015-3989;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-250-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2015-0117, dated June 24, 2015; corrected August 7, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A318; A319; A320; and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Reports have been received indicating premature ageing of
certain chemical oxygen generators, Part Number (P/N) 117042-XX (XX
representing any numerical value), manufactured by B/E Aerospace.
Some operators reported that when they tried to activate generators,
some older units failed to activate. Given the number of failed
units reported, all generators manufactured in 1999, 2000 and 2001
were considered unreliable.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the
generator to activate and consequently not deliver oxygen during an
emergency, possibly resulting in injury to aeroplane occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A35N006-14, making reference to B/E
Aerospace Service Information Letter (SIL) D1019-01 (currently at
Revision 1) and B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 117042-35-001.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD * * * (later revised) to require
identification and replacement of the affected oxygen generators.
    Since EASA AD 2014-0275R1 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2014-0275R1] was issued, and following new investigation results, EASA
have decided to introduce a life limitation concerning all P/N
117042-XX chemical oxygen generators, manufactured by B/E Aerospace.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of the EASA AD 2014-0275R1, which is superseded,
expands the scope of the [EASA] AD to include chemical oxygen
generators manufactured after 2001, and requires their removal from
service before exceeding 10 years since date of manufacture.

    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-2015-
3989.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Alert AOT A35N006-14, dated December 10, 2014,
including Appendix 01.
    B/E Aerospace Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 117042-35-001, dated
December 10, 2014.
    This service information describes procedures to replace certain
passenger chemical oxygen generators. 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 of this NPRM.

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 these
same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    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. Required parts would cost about $390
per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $533,680, or $560 per product.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-3989; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-
250-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 3, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this
AD; all manufacturer serial numbers, except those that have embodied
Airbus modification 33125 (gaseous system for all oxygen containers)
in production.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of premature aging of certain
passenger chemical oxygen generators that resulted in the generators
failing to activate. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the passenger chemical oxygen generator to activate and consequently
not deliver oxygen during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury
to the airplane occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Part Number Inspection

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do a one-
time inspection of passenger chemical oxygen generators, part
numbers (P/N) 117042-02 (15 minutes (min)-2 masks), 117042-03 (15
min-3 masks), 117042-04 (15 min-4 masks), 117042-22 (22 min-2
masks), 117042-23 (22 min-3 masks), and 117042-24 (22 min-4 masks)
to determine the date of manufacture as specified in Airbus Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A35N006-14, dated December 10, 2014,
including Appendix 01. Refer to figure 1 and figure 2 to paragraph
(g) of this AD for the location of the date. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable for the inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, provided the date of manufacture can be
conclusively determined by that review.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC15.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC15.001

(h) Replacement of Passenger Chemical Oxygen Generators Manufactured in
1999, 2000, or 2001

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any passenger chemical oxygen generator having a date of manufacture
in 1999, 2000, or 2001 is found: At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, remove and replace
the affected passenger chemical oxygen generator with a serviceable
unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of B/E
Aerospace Service Bulletin 117042-35-001, dated December 10, 2014
(for 15 minute passenger chemical oxygen generators); and Airbus AOT
A35N006-14, dated December 10, 2014, including Appendix 01 (for 22
minute passenger chemical oxygen generators).
    (1) For passenger chemical oxygen generators that have a date of
manufacture in 1999: Within 30 days after the effective date of this
AD.
    (2) For passenger chemical oxygen generators that have a date of
manufacture in 2000: Within 6 months after the effective date of
this AD.
    (3) For passenger chemical oxygen generators that have a date of
manufacture in 2001: Within 12 months after the effective date of
this AD.

(i) Replacement of Passenger Chemical Oxygen Generators Manufactured in
2002 and Later

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any passenger chemical oxygen generator having a date specified in
table 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD is found: At the applicable time
specified in table 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, remove and replace
the affected passenger chemical oxygen generator with a serviceable
unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of B/E
Aerospace Service Bulletin 117042-35-001, dated December 10, 2014
(for 15 minute passenger chemical oxygen generators) and Airbus AOT
A35N006-14, dated December 10, 2014, including Appendix 01 (for 22
minute passenger chemical oxygen generators).

    Table 1 to Paragraph (i) of this AD--Replacement Compliance Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Year of  manufacture                    Compliance time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002..................................  Within 12 months after the
                                         effective date of this AD.
2003..................................  Within 16 months after the
                                         effective date of this AD.
2004..................................  Within 20 months after the
                                         effective date of this AD.
2005..................................  Within 24 months after the
                                         effective date of this AD.
2006..................................  Within 28 months after the
                                         effective date of this AD.
2007..................................  Within 32 months after the
                                         effective date of this AD.
2008..................................  Within 36 months after the
                                         effective date of this AD.

2009..................................  Before exceeding 10 years since
                                         date of manufacture of the
                                         passenger chemical oxygen
                                         generator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(j) Definition of Serviceable

    For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable unit is a passenger
chemical oxygen generator having P/N 117042-XX with a manufacturing
date not older than 10 years, or any other approved part number,
provided that the generator has not exceeded the life limit
established for that generator by the manufacturer.

(k) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2)
of this AD, submit a report of the findings (both positive and
negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, in
accordance with paragraph 7., ``Reporting,'' of Airbus AOT A35N006-
14, dated December 10, 2014, including Appendix 01. The report must
include the information specified in Appendix 1 of Airbus AOT
A35N006-14, dated December 10, 2014.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(l) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
passenger chemical oxygen generator, unless it is determined, prior
to installation, that the oxygen generator is a serviceable unit as
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(m) 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: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive EASA AD 2015-0117, dated June
24, 2015; corrected August 7, 2015, 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-
2015-3989.
    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this proposed
AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 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. For BE service identified in this
proposed AD, contact B/E Aerospace Inc., 10800 Pflumm Road, Lenexa,
KS 66215; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
http://beaerospace.com/home/globalsupport. 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 October 6, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-26220 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32022-32026]
[FR Doc No: E9-15741]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60172; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-040]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 2380 To Limit the Leverage Ratio Offered by Broker-Dealers
for Certain Forex Transactions

June 25, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 4, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 2380 to prohibit any member
firm from permitting a customer to: (1) Initiate any forex position
with a leverage ratio of greater than 1.5 to 1; and (2) withdraw money
from an open forex position that would cause the leverage ratio for
such position to be greater than 1.5 to 1.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    FINRA is proposing to limit the leverage ratio offered by broker-
dealers for certain forex transactions to no more than 1.5 to 1. The
proposed rule change addresses forex transactions in the off-exchange
spot contract market. This market has grown in recent years following
the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
(``CFMA''), which permits certain enumerated entities, including
broker-dealers, to act as counterparties to a retail forex contract.\3\
While most of the growth in this area has been concentrated in the
futures commission merchant (``FCM'') channel, recent changes in
legislation have brought greater interest to forex by broker-
dealers.\4\ The proposed rule change seeks to limit investor losses
resulting from small changes in the exchange rate of a foreign currency
and is intended to reduce the risks of excessive speculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Public Law 106-
554, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-378 (2001).
    \4\ See CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246,
122 Stat. 1651 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule change states that no member
shall permit a customer to initiate a forex position (as defined below)
with a leverage ratio greater than 1.5 to 1. Thus, at the time a
customer initiates a forex position, the customer must deposit at least
\2/3\ of the notional value of the contract. Using the example in
supplementary material .01, a customer entering into a forex contract
representing $750,000 of a foreign currency must have an initial
deposit of at least $500,000. The proposed rule change differs from the
leverage limits in the FCM channel, where depending on the foreign
currency selected, a customer at 400 to 1 leverage would need only an
initial deposit of $1,875.
    In addition, paragraph (a) also states that ``no member shall
permit a customer to withdraw money from an open forex position that
would cause the leverage ratio for such position to be greater than 1.5
to 1.'' This provision is intended to prevent a customer from
depositing funds at the initiation of the forex position and then
immediately withdrawing them once the position is established. If a
customer were permitted to withdraw the funds once a position is
established, the leverage limitation could easily be circumvented as
the same deposit could be used to establish multiple forex positions.
    The limitation on a customer's ability to withdraw funds that would
cause the leverage ratio to exceed 1.5 to 1 differs from a maintenance
margin requirement in that an adverse movement in a customer's forex
contract will not necessitate the deposit of additional funds. The
intra-day and day-to-day pricing changes of a forex contract may cause
a customer to have a leverage ratio greater than 1.5 to 1. So long as a
customer does not withdraw funds from those initially used to establish
the position, a leverage ratio may exceed 1.5 to 1. FINRA considered
imposing a maintenance margin requirement but determined that the level
of initial deposit was sufficiently high that a maintenance margin
requirement was not necessary.
    The proposed rule change does not impact existing rules addressing
the necessary customer funds to enter into and maintain a forex
position. For example, Regulation T does not have margin requirements
for forex and allows a customer to obtain nonpurpose credit in a good
faith account to effect and carry transactions in forex.\5\ However, it
should be noted that any funds deposited in a margin account to
maintain a forex position or any account equity derived from a forex
position may not be used to purchase securities in that account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 12 CFR 220.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule change establishes the key
definitions. The term ``forex'' is defined to mean a foreign currency
spot, forward, future, option or any other agreement, contract, or
transaction in foreign currency that: (1) Is offered or entered into on
a leveraged basis, or financed by the offeror, the counter party, or a
person acting in concert with such person, (2) offered to or entered
into with persons that are not eligible contract participants; \6\ and
(3) not executed on or subject to the rules of a contract market,\7\
derivatives transaction execution facility,\8\ national securities
exchange,\9\ or foreign board of trade.\10\ FINRA is proposing an
amended version of the definition of forex from what appeared in
Regulatory Notice 09-06 by adding the terms ``spot'' and ``forward'' in
order to clarify that the leverage limitation will apply to foreign
currency transactions no matter how they are legally classified.
FINRA's definition of forex is similar to the National Futures
Association's (``NFA'') definition of forex \11\ and to amended Section
2(c)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act which sets forth the scope of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (``CFTC'') rulemaking
jurisdiction.\12\ The FINRA definition, however, does not contain an
exclusion for certain spot and forward contracts found in the NFA and
CFTC definitions, which were included due to CFTC jurisdictional
limitations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Eligible Contract Participants'' (``ECPs'') include
regulated entities such as financial institutions, insurance
companies, investment companies and broker-dealers. Certain
corporations and individuals qualify as ECPs by meeting the
requirements under the statute. See 7 U.S.C. 1a(12).
    \7\ ``Contract markets'' are markets that are designated by the
CFTC that meet the criteria in Section 5 of the Commodity Exchange
Act. See 7 U.S.C. 7.
    \8\ ``Derivatives transaction execution facilities'' (``DTEFs'')
are CFTC-registered trading facilities that limit access primarily
to institutional or otherwise eligible traders and/or limit the
products traded. See 7 U.S.C. 7a.
    \9\ A ``national securities exchange'' is a securities exchange
that has registered with the SEC under Section 6 of the Exchange
Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ A ``foreign board of trade'' means any organized exchange
or trading facility located outside of the United States.
    \11\ NFA By-Law 1507(b).
    \12\ See CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008, 13101 (to be codified
at 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I)).
    \13\ NFA By-Law 1507(b) and CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008,
13101 (to be codified at 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(II)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) also defines the term ``leverage ratio'' to mean the
fraction represented by the numerator which is the notional value of a
forex transaction, and the denominator, which is the amount of good
faith deposit or account equity required from the customer for a forex
position. For example, if the notional value of a forex contract is
$250,000, and the customer deposits $200,000, the leverage ratio would
be 1.25 to 1.
    FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be 30 days following
publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative

acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. FINRA
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of the Act noted above in that it will limit leverage
ratios, requiring greater initial deposits that will substantially
reduce the likelihood that any small adverse percentage change in the
exchange rate of a foreign currency will cause an investor's funds to
be wiped out. Moreover, limiting the leverage ratios is intended to
reduce the risks of excessive speculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in FINRA
Regulatory Notice 09-06 (January 2009). FINRA received 109 comments in
response to the Regulatory Notice. A copy of the Regulatory Notice is
attached as Exhibit 2a, the index to the comment letters is attached as
Exhibit 2b and copies of the comment letters received in response to
the Regulatory Notice are attached as Exhibit 2c.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ All references to commenters under this Item are to the
commenters as listed in Exhibit 2b to the proposed rule change [SR-
FINRA-2009-040].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 109 comment letters received, none were in favor of the
proposed rule change and 108 were opposed; one comment letter did not
express an opinion.
    Ninety-seven of the comment letters were from individual investors
who opposed FINRA's attempts to limit the amount of leverage
available.\16\ FINRA believes the central theme in these comment
letters was that it was unfair to lower the leverage ratios available
and that neither the government nor any regulator should inhibit an
individual's freedom to invest and make money.\17\ In short, commenters
believe that they should be entitled to invest their money at whatever
leverage ratio they see fit. Several of these commenters \18\ argued
that the proposed rule change would kill the off-exchange retail forex
business or force traders to trade in foreign, less regulated
markets.\19\ Many of the individual investors believed that the
leverage limitations were unnecessary because they could manage their
risk by trading in small amounts or by entering a stop-loss order.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Abhay, Aird, Akhras, Ali, Andrews, Arthur, Avery, Chris,
Cohn, Colman, Crowley, Dallmann, Daniels, David, Day, Decker,
Delfino, Doozan, Evergreen, Figlewski, Findley, Fortner, Gallagher,
Gallagher 2, Getline, Goff, GoodBoy, Gray, gslatham, Gurkan,
Hoepker, Howell, Hurley, Issacs, Jackal, Jackson, Jacobs, James,
Jim, Johnston, Jones, Kerr, Lambert, Langin, Lannon, Lebold,
Leousis, Levy, Marsh, Marshall, Muir, National Information,
Nadjakov, Negus, Newhouse, Nichols, Nick, nv46, O'Moore, Otlo,
Overfield, Parker, Pellot, Pena, Prime, Prindle, Quesenberry,
Rajenthiran, Ramlakhan, Ramsey, Rawlins, Revolg, Rice, Richardson,
L. Richardson, Rigney, Rocha, Romero, Sabo, Salatino, Shore,
Sinclair, Sinclair 2, Thomlinson, Tischer, Uwins, Vern, Walker,
Waratah, Weaver, Weisbloom, Wilkes, Williams, Young, Young 2,
Zarlengo and Zepco.
    \17\ Aird, Akhras, Avery, Day, Doozan, Findley, Gallagher,
Gallagher 2, Getline, GoodBoy, gslatham, Jackson, Jacobs, James,
Jones, Lannon, Marsh, National Information, Newhouse, nv46, O'Moore,
Quesenberry, Ramsey, Revolg, Richardson, L. Richardson, Rigney,
Sabo, Sinclair, Vern, Walker, Wilkes, Williams, Young and Zarlengo.
    \18\ Abhay, Akhras, Andrews, Crowley, David, Figlewski, Fortner,
Getline, GoodBoy, Gray, Gurkan, Hoepker, Lambert, Lebold, Leousis,
Nick, nv46, Prindle, Ramlakhan, Rawlins, Rice, Romero, Sinclair 2,
Thomlinson, Tischer, Waratah, Wilkes, Williams and Zepco.
    \19\ Because many of these commenters are unfamiliar with FINRA
and its jurisdiction, FINRA believes that these commenters
mistakenly believe that the proposed rule change would eliminate
their ability to trade forex at higher leverage levels. FINRA's
proposal would have no direct effect on the leverage ratios offered
by non-broker-dealers, which currently represent the overwhelming
majority of participants in this industry. As of November 2008, the
NFA had 26 Forex Dealer Members. See Lee Oliver, Retail FX in the
U.S.: A Market in Transformation, Futures Industry Magazine,
November/December 2008, at 35.
    \20\ Abhay, Colman, Gurkan, Leousis, Sinclair 2, Weisbloom and
Williams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA staff disagrees with these commenters and the laissez faire
and caveat emptor approach. FINRA's mandate includes investor
protection, and many of the comment letters, such as those from
retirees and retail investors, are from individuals whose interests are
traditionally helped by FINRA's regulatory program.\21\ Taken to their
logical conclusion, FINRA believes that these commenters would likely
oppose many of FINRA's existing rules (including a 25% maintenance
margin requirement, and the minimum equity of $25,000 for pattern day
traders),\22\ as well as the initial margin limitations in the Federal
Reserve Board's Regulation T.\23\ Further, while a stop-loss order may
help minimize the losses on any particular forex position, it does not
address the fact that at high levels of leverage, such as 400 or 100 to
1, a very small movement in the exchange rate of a foreign currency
pair trade will quickly trigger the stop-loss provision and close out
the position with a loss. Similarly, the fact that a firm will close
out a customer position and not issue a margin call does not address
the potential for losses resulting from such high leverage ratios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ One investor noted that after finally saving up $114, he
was able to start trading forex.
    \22\ See NASD Rule 2520.
    \23\ 12 CFR 220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, these commenters believed that the proposal was
targeted at the retail investor, while allowing larger institutional
investors to have access to higher levels of leverage.\24\ One
commenter compared the proposed rule change to the ``accredited
investor'' standard which he viewed as preventing the little guy from
having access to the best deals.\25\ Interestingly, some of those
commenters who opposed the proposed rule change also acknowledged that
existing levels of leverage were excessive and would not trade at these
levels.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Abhay, Arthur, Chris, Goff, Gurkan, James, Jim, Kerr,
Leousis, Nadjakov, Newhouse, Nichols, Prime, Prindle, Ramsey,
Sinclair, Sinclair 2, Vern, Weisbloom, Williams and Young 2.
    \25\ Avery.
    \26\ Crowley (offered 40 to 1, yet trades at no more than 2 to
1); Dallmann (says you should not risk more than 2% of your account
balance); Delfino (allow for a maximum leverage of 100 to 1);
Lambert (understanding lowering the limit to 100 to 1); Parker
(proposing maximum leverage of 5 to 1 or 4 to 1); Ramlakhan (the
firm he trades with offers 40 to 1, but he uses no more than 16 to
1); Revolg (leverage no less than 20 to 1); Uwins (stating ``400:1
is getting a little ridiculous'' and favoring 100:1 or less); and
Waratah (uses a true leverage of 5 to 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several broker-dealers submitted comment letters on the proposed
rule change. Interactive Brokers, Knight, TD Ameritrade and thinkorswim
believed that the investor protection benefits of the proposed rule
change would not be attained as the proposal would merely divert
customers' forex activities to non-FINRA members.\27\ Knight urged
FINRA to allow customers to trade forex at broker-dealers ``on similar
terms as accounts held at entities that are not regulated by FINRA.''
FINRA does not believe that the opportunity for customers to trade in a
less-regulated environment or on more lenient terms is a compelling
rationale to limit the application of the proposed rule change. Prior
to soliciting comment on the proposed rule change in Regulatory Notice
09-06, FINRA reviewed the regulatory requirements of other regulators
and concluded that the availability of such high levels of leverage was
the crux of the problem faced by investors. FINRA acknowledges that
different regulators may choose to pursue their regulatory mandate in
separate ways; however,

FINRA is not compelled to follow the standards adopted by other
regulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ This view also was reflected in comment letters by FIA and
FXC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FIA, FXC and thinkorswim urged FINRA to use the standards
articulated in Regulatory Notice 08-66 (Retail Foreign Currency
Exchange) and FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and
Principles of Trade), and best practices adopted by the forex community
in lieu of the proposed rule change. While FINRA believes that the
protections afforded investors under Regulatory Notice 08-66 and FINRA
Rule 2010 are meaningful, they do not, in FINRA's view, go far enough.
FXC also questioned whether FINRA has the authority to control the
terms of a non-securities transaction. FINRA does not read any
provisions in the Act that prohibit it from proposing rules on broker-
dealer conduct relating to non-securities. The standards for the rules
of a national securities association in Section 15A of the Act include
the ``protect[ion] of investors'' irrespective of whether such activity
relates to securities. Ironically, FXC's premise that FINRA Rule 2010
and Regulatory Notice 08-66 are sufficient to protect investors
contradicts its assertion that FINRA does not have authority to adopt
rules relating to non-securities transactions.
    FIA and Interactive Brokers stated that the proposed rule change is
inconsistent with congressional intent in allowing a broker-dealer to
engage in an off-exchange retail forex business. While Congress
authorized a class of regulated entities to engage in an off-exchange
retail forex business,\28\ FINRA believes that there is nothing in the
legislation to suggest that Congress intended that each regulated
entity would adopt a conforming regulatory regime. Indeed, when the
CFMA was adopted, Congress was well-aware of the differing regulatory
regimes in the eligible entities. Moreover, FINRA believes Congress
actually contributed to the regulatory disparities in only increasing
the minimum net capital required for FCMs.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 6.
    \29\ CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008, 13101 (to be codified at
7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interactive Brokers, Roberts & Ryan and TradeStation suggested that
FINRA adopt an exclusion from the proposed rule change for FINRA
members that are dually registered broker-dealer/FCMs like themselves.
Both Interactive Brokers and TradeStation stated that dual registrants
will be subject to oversight by the CFTC and/or NFA. FINRA believes
Interactive Brokers and TradeStation are misreading the CEA and the
scope of the NFA's rules. The CEA specifically states that the CFTC's
jurisdiction over off-exchange retail forex applies only to FCMs that
are not also a registered broker-dealer.\30\ Similarly, NFA exempts
from its Forex Dealer Members entities that are a member of a national
securities association.\31\ Thus, Interactive Brokers' and
TradeStation's off-exchange retail forex business operate outside the
ambit of the CFTC and NFA rules tailored to forex. It is not sufficient
for regulatory purposes that the CTFC and NFA can enforce their books
and records and general anti-fraud provisions. Moreover, even if
Interactive Brokers and TradeStation were to voluntarily submit to the
NFA's jurisdiction for purpose of applying its off-exchange retail
forex rules, FINRA would still have concerns about the level of
leverage provided in what is a joint broker-dealer/FCM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008, 1301 (to be codified at 7
U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)(cc)(AA)).
    \31\ NFA By-Law 306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interactive Brokers, thinkorswim and TradeStation also argued that
the proposed rule change will disadvantage combined broker-dealer/FCMs.
FINRA agrees that conducting an off-exchange retail forex business in a
combined broker-dealer will subject the firm to a different regulatory
regime than if the business were conducted in a separate FCM. Such
differences exist today in the application of FINRA Rule 2010 and NASD
Rule 2210 to joint broker-dealer/FCMs. FINRA also notes that joint
broker-dealer/FCMs are in many other ways operating in a less regulated
environment inasmuch as they operate outside of the CFTC and NFA rules
on forex. However, the observation that either another regulatory
scheme or practices occurring outside of any regulatory scheme allow
business in retail forex at greater leverage levels is neither a
compelling reason for FINRA to mandate a standard less than that deemed
necessary by FINRA for investor protection nor does it demonstrate a
deficiency for meeting the elements of approval of this proposed rule
change under the Act.
    Several commenters \32\ suggested that disclosure about the risks
of leverage, or the actual leverage, in a particular transaction would
be an effective alternative to the proposed rule change. FINRA
disagrees that disclosure alone is an effective regulatory solution.
FINRA also notes that Regulatory Notice 08-66 already requires
disclosures of the risks of forex trading and the risks and terms of
leveraged trading.\33\ SIFMA suggested that FINRA adopt a definition of
retail customer. FINRA disagrees and believes that the reference to the
``eligible contract participant'' standard is most appropriate for the
proposed rule change as that is the terminology used in the federal
legislation that permits a broker-dealer to engage in an off-exchange
retail forex business. SIFMA and TD Ameritrade also requested that
FINRA adopt a hedging exemption to allow customers to hedge foreign
currency exposure from securities. FINRA does not support a hedging
exemption as there are many other available alternatives (e.g.,
exchange traded futures and options, and other OTC products) that may
be used to hedge foreign currency exposure. Furthermore, FINRA does not
believe that the off-exchange retail forex markets are used for hedging
and is concerned that burdens and complexities in establishing a
hedging exemption will not be justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Dallmann, Hurley, Rocha and Young.
    \33\ See Regulatory Notice 08-66, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA also suggested that FINRA clarify whether Exchange Act Rule
15c3-3 is applicable to the deposit required to carry positions
involving retail transactions in foreign exchange. FINRA will work with
the SEC to publish an interpretation of Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3 that
will address this question.
    Finally, TD Ameritrade stated that the proposed rule change would
cause broker-dealers to establish an FCM affiliate or to establish an
introducing relationship with an NFA firm that offers off-exchange
retail forex, and that the broker-dealer would therefore be unregulated
with respect to its forex activity. FINRA disagrees and notes that
Regulatory Notice 08-66 was very clear in reminding firms that broker-
dealer forex activities, including referral and introducing activities,
would be subject to FINRA Rule 2010.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-040 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-FINRA-2009-040. 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-040 and should be
submitted on or before July 27, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15741 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P