[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33977-33981]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13823]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72351; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Rule
1080.08

June 9, 2014.
    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 3, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1080.08 as follows: (1) To
exclude the existence of any contingencies from the broadcast message;
(2) to address the priority of orders/COLA Sweeps executing after a
COLA; and (3) to add reference to specific order types and
contingencies applicable to Complex Orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.

* * * * *
    Rule 1080. Phlx XL and Phlx XL II
    (a)-(p) No change.
     Commentary: ------------
    .01-.07 No change.
    .08 Complex Orders on Phlx XL.
    (a) No change.
    (b) Complex orders may be entered in increments of $0.01 with
certain ``time in force'' designations and as certain order types
with certain contingencies as follows:
    (i)-(iv) No change.
    (v) Complex Orders may be submitted as:
    All-or-none orders--to be executed in its entirety or not at
all. These orders can only be submitted for non-broker-dealer
customers.
    Cancel-replacement orders--require the immediate cancellation of
a previously received order prior to the replacement of a new order
with new terms and conditions. If the previously placed order is
already filled partially or in its entirety the replacement order is
automatically canceled or reduced by such number.
    Limit orders--to be executed at a specified price or better.
    Market orders--to be executed at the best price available at the
time of execution.
    (c)-(d) No change.
    (e) Process for Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA''). Complex
Orders on the Complex Order Book (``CBOOK,'' as defined below) may
be subject to an automated auction process.
    (i) No change.
    (ii) Initiation of a COLA. Upon the identification of the COLA-
eligible order by the Phlx XL system, the Exchange will send a
broadcast message to Phlx XL participants indicating that a COLA has
been initiated. The broadcast message will identify the Complex
Order Strategy, and the size, side and price of the COLA-eligible
order [and any contingencies, if applicable (such as, without
limitation, All-Or-None)].
    (iii) COLA Timer. The COLA will begin with a timing mechanism (a
``COLA Timer''), which is a counting period not to exceed five (5)
seconds during which Phlx XL participants may submit bids or offers
that improve the cPBBO. The COLA Timer will be set for the same
number of seconds for all options trading on the Exchange as
determined by the Exchange and communicated to membership on the
Exchange's Web site. Complex Orders may be cancelled at any time
prior to the commencement of a COLA.
    (iv) Bidding and Offering in Response to a COLA. Phlx XL
participants may bid and/or offer on either or both side(s) of the
market during the COLA Timer by submitting one or more bids or
offers that improve the cPBBO, known as a ``COLA Sweep.''
    (A)-(D) No change.
    (v) No change.
    (vi) Allocation and Priority. As stated above, COLA-eligible
orders, COLA Sweeps, and responsive Complex Orders will trade first
based on the best price or prices available at the end of the COLA
Timer.
    (A) (1)-(3) No change.
    (B) If multiple customer Complex Orders, COLA Sweeps, Phlx XL
participant Complex Orders and/or non-customer off-floor broker-
dealer Complex Orders are eligible for execution against the COLA-
eligible order at the same price, the trade will be allocated among
participants submitting electronic Complex Orders and COLA Sweeps as
set forth below. Executions in the COLA will comply with the
requirements of Exchange Rule 1080.08(c)(iii) above. For allocation
purposes, the size of a COLA Sweep or responsive Complex Order
received during the COLA Timer shall be limited to the size of the
COLA-eligible order.
    (1) First, to customer marketable Complex Orders on the CBOOK
(as defined below) in the order in which they were received;
    (2) Second, to COLA Sweeps [on a size pro-rata basis;
    (3) Third, to] and SQTs, RSQTs, and non-SQT ROTs who have
submitted Complex Orders that are marketable against the COLA-
eligible order, on a size pro-rata basis; and
    [(4) Fourth](3) Third, to non-market maker off-floor broker-
dealers on a size pro-rata basis.
    (C)-(D) No change.
    (vii)-(ix) No change.
    (f)-(i) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to correct the rule text to provide
clarity to Phlx Participants regarding the trading of Complex Orders on
the Exchange. The Exchange's Complex Order System, which is governed by
Rule 1080.08, includes the Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA''), an
automated auction for seeking additional liquidity and price
improvement for Complex Orders. When the Exchange receives a COLA-
eligible order that triggers a COLA, the system broadcasts information
about the COLA-eligible order--the ``COLA Message.'' The duration of
the COLA is fixed and measured by a COLA Timer. During the COLA Timer,
the rule provides that Phlx XL participants \3\ may submit ``COLA
Sweeps,'' which are bids and/or offers on either or both side(s) of the
market by submitting one or more bids or offers that improve the
cPBBO.\4\ Also during the COLA Timer, Phlx members may enter other
Complex Orders at any price. While COLA Sweeps are submitted in direct
response to a COLA-eligible order, Complex Orders may or may not be
submitted in direct response to a COLA-eligible order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ COLA Sweeps can only be entered by Phlx XL Participants who
quote electronically as market makers for their own account
(Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs''), Remote Streaming Quote Traders
(``RSQTs'') and specialists). Because non-SQT ROTs do not quote
electronically, they cannot enter COLA Sweeps, which are electronic.
See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(C) and Rule 1080.08(e)(ix).
    \4\ The cPBBO is the best net debit or credit price for a
Complex Order based on the PBBO for the individual options
components of such Complex Order, and, where the underlying security
is a component of the Complex Order, the National Best Bid and/or
Offer for the underlying security. See Rule 1080.08(a)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

COLA Message
    Currently, upon the identification of the COLA-eligible order by
the Phlx XL system, the Exchange will broadcast a COLA Message to Phlx
XL participants indicating that a COLA has been initiated. The COLA
Message identifies the Complex Order Strategy, the size, side and price
of the COLA-eligible order.\5\ The COLA Message is sent over TOPO Plus
Orders,\6\ the Exchange's market data feed for subscribers interested
in the detailed information it offers, including messages relating to
Complex Orders. The Specialized Quote Feed (``SQF'') also contains COLA
Messages.\7\ Like auction messages on multiple exchanges, the COLA
Message

is designed to attract responsive interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange recently added the price and side of the market
to the COLA Message. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70271
(August 27, 2013), 78 FR 54340 (September 3, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-
88).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60877 (October 26,
2009), 74 FR 56255 (October 30, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-92).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63034 (October 2, 2010),
75 FR 62441 (October 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to delete reference in the rule text to
the contingencies that an order might have. Testing has recently
revealed that the rule text is inaccurate; contingencies are not
included in the COLA Message.\8\ Two contingencies apply to Complex
Orders: all-or-none and cancel-replace. An all-or-none order is a
contingency order that is a market or limit order which is to be
executed in its entirety or not at all.\9\ An all-or-none order can
execute against multiple orders, as long as it is executed in full.
All-or-none Complex Orders can only be submitted for non-broker-dealer
customers, the same as for non-Complex Orders.\10\ A cancel-replacement
order is a contingency order that require the immediate cancellation of
a previously received order prior to the replacement of a new order
with new terms and conditions. If the previously placed order is
already filled partially or in its entirety the replacement order is
automatically canceled or reduced by such number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ However, contingencies are included in the order message
sent over TOPO Plus Orders. Complex Order messages merely show that
a Complex Order was received, including the details of those orders,
and are sent when such order is received; COLA Messages indicate
that a COLA is beginning and are therefore sent when a COLA begins.
Both Complex Order messages and COLA messages are available to all
who subscribe to the PHLX Orders feed (which is a subset of the TOPO
Plus Orders feed); the feed is available to all participants seeking
to subscribe. See http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPSpecs#options_x for a description of Exchange
feeds.
    \9\ See Rule 1066(c)(4).
    \10\ See Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i), which covers non-Complex Orders
and provides that the following types of agency orders are eligible:
day, GTC, Immediate or Cancel (``IOC''), Intermarket Sweep Order
(``ISO''), market, limit, stop, stop-limit, all or none, or better,
simple cancel, simple cancel to reduce size (cancel leaves), cancel
to change price, cancel with replacement order, opening-only-market
order, limit on opening order, and possible duplicate orders. The
following types of off-floor broker-dealer limit orders may be
entered: day, GTC, IOC, ISO, stop, stop-limit, simple cancel, simple
cancel to reduce size (cancel leaves), cancel to change price,
cancel with replacement order, limit on opening order. SQTs and
RSQTs can enter limit on opening, IOC, ISO, and DAY limit order for
their proprietary account(s). Non-SQT ROTs and specialists can enter
orders for their proprietary account(s) as GTC, DAY limit, IOC, ISO,
limit on opening and simple cancel as well as orders for less than
10 contracts marked as IOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to broadcast a COLA
Message without revealing a Complex Order's contingencies, because such
contingencies are not a material term of the order. The Exchange does
not believe that including or excluding that an order is an all-or-none
order or a cancel-replacement order significantly affects whether a
participant will respond to a particular COLA, which is the purpose of
the COLA Message. Of course, the fact than an order is an all-or-none
order will affect what order it can execute against, depending upon the
size of each order. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that
participants would not decide whether to respond to a COLA based on the
all-or-none contingency on the order initiating the COLA. If a
participant could see that a particular order is an all-or-none order
for a large size and such participant intended to submit a smaller
order, the participant might assume that an execution would be
unlikely; however, another participant could enter an order that caused
there to be enough size to execute the all-or-none order. Thus, the
information that an order is an all-or-none order is not enough
information for a participant submitting an order for a size smaller
than the all-or-none order to definitively predict whether it will
execute, because of other orders \11\ and market factors. Although a
participant might choose to response with an order for a size equal to
or greater than the all-or-none order, the Exchange believes that
participants enter orders for a size that reflects their true interest,
strategy and risk profile and are not influenced by the existence of an
all-or-none contingency on an order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Participants cannot see others' responses so they are
effectively ``blind'' to other responsive interest when making their
own responsive decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that all-or-none orders are rare. Specifically,
in August 2013, only 0.04% of COLAs were initiated by all-or-none
orders. Furthermore, from February 2013 through July 2013, less than
.05% of COLAs were initiated by all-or-none orders. In addition, only
0.12% of all Complex Orders from February 2013 through July 2013 were
entered as all-or-none orders. Accordingly, excluding from the COLA
message that an order is an all-or-none should not have a significant
impact on participants or on COLAs.
    With respect to cancel-replacement orders, the cancellation aspect
of the order has no impact on the contra-side. The way the contingency
operates is that the first order is entered as a normal Complex Order
without a contingency, and it is later followed by a second order with
has a cancel-replace contingency. The first order is then cancelled,
fulfilling the contingency on the second order.\12\ Therefore, if the
first order starts a COLA, even if the Exchange displayed contingencies
in a COLA Message, such order would not have one. If the second order
starts a COLA, it no longer has a contingency and therefore display of
the contingency would not be relevant. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe there would be any impact on responses whether or not the
cancellation contingency is shown in the COLA message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The replacement order does not retain the priority of the
order it replaces. While the replacement order is eligible to trade
at the end of the COLA, it is no longer treated as the COLA-eligible
order and thus does not have the priority associated with a COLA-
eligible order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange stated in its rule that contingency
information would be included in the COLA message, the Exchange did not
build a field to include that information and did not therefore include
reference to this information in its specification document to
participants seeking to receive its data feeds. The Exchange is not
aware that any participant asked for such contingency information, even
though it appears in the rule text.
    Other types of contingencies are listed in Rule 1066,\13\ but these
do not apply to Complex Orders, because they are inconsistent with
having multiple components. For example, stop and stop-limit
orders,\14\ Opening-Only-Market Orders and Limit on Opening orders are
all particular to one option series. The Exchange has not received
requests for these order types to be made available. The Exchange
proposes to make clear what order designations are available respecting
Complex Orders by adopting Rule 1080.08(b)(v), which will provide that
Complex Orders may be submitted as: All-or-none orders; \15\

cancel-replacement orders; \16\ limit orders; \17\ and market
orders.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Rule 1066(c) has been amended to delete the order types in
(2), (3) and (6). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70629
(October 8, 2013), 78 FR 62852 (October 22, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-
100). Although Rule 1066(c)(8) lists immediate-or-cancel (``IOC'')
orders as a type of contingency order, the Exchange believes that
IOC is better described as a time-in-force and it is therefore
included with other time-in-force conditions like DAY and GTC in the
Complex Order Rule. See Rule 1080.08(b). The Exchange does not
indicate in the COLA Message the time-in-force of an order.
    \14\ With respect to stop and stop-limit orders, although such
Complex Orders could conceivably be tied to a net debit/credit
price, developing a transparent way to effect the stop price would
be difficult, because Complex Order net prices are not disseminated
to OPRA, nor are the Complex Order prices disseminated as a quote to
OPRA. Thus, the Exchange does not believe it would be practicable to
accept stop or stop limit orders as Complex Orders.
    \15\ All-or-none orders are to be executed in its entirety or
not at all. This is the same definition as currently found in Rule
1066(c)(4). These orders are only available to non-broker-dealer
customers.
    \16\ Cancel-replacement orders require the immediate
cancellation of a previously received order prior to the replacement
of a new order with new terms and conditions. If the previously
placed order is already filled partially or in its entirety the
replacement order is automatically canceled or reduced by such
number. This is the same definition as Rule 1066(c)(7).
    \17\ Limit orders are to be executed at a specified price or
better. This is the same definition as Rule 1066(b).
    \18\ Market orders are to be executed at the best price
available at the time of execution. This is the same definition as
Rule 1066(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority Change
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1080.08(e)(vi)(B)
to provide that market maker \19\ COLA Sweeps and market maker Complex
Orders are treated the same in the COLA, meaning one does not have
execution priority over the other. The Rule incorrectly states that
COLA Sweeps have priority over market maker Complex Orders. The
Exchange believes that it is appropriate for market maker COLA Sweeps
and market maker Complex Orders to be treated the same way for priority
purposes, because they are both coming from market makers.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Market maker COLA Sweeps include those entered by SQTs and
RSQTs. Non-SQT ROTs cannot enter COLA Sweeps. See supra note 3.
Specialists' COLA Sweeps are addressed in Rule 1080.08(e)(vi)(C).
    \20\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\21\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ in particular, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade. Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing that the COLA Message will not include a COLA-eligible
order's contingencies. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that, even
without contingencies, the COLA message should promote just and
equitable principles of trade, because market participants will
continue to receive information that is material to responding to a
COLA-eligible order. The Exchange believes that contingency information
is rather extraneous and notes that market participants have not asked
why it is not currently made available, despite the current reference
to it in the rule text. Even if the Exchange included contingency
information in the COLA message, the Exchange does not believe that
participants would use it or rely on it to make trading decisions.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is consistent with just and
equitable principles of trade to not include contingency information.
In addition, the Exchange notes that contingency information respecting
each Complex Order is available on its order feed, TOPO Plus Orders,
which contains Complex Order information.\23\ Because the same
information is available on that feed, the Exchange does not believe
that participants are adversely impacted and all participants have
access to the same message, such that it is consistent with just and
equitable principles of trade to not include this information in the
COLA Message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60877 (October 26,
2009), 74 FR 56255 (October 30, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-92); and 66693
(May 15, 2012), 77 FR 30043 (May 21, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that all-or-none Complex Orders are not
common. It is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade,
because it would not have any impact on participants whether or not
this information is provided. Similarly, the Exchange believes that it
is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade to not
include the cancel-replace contingency in a COLA Message. Because the
first order, as explained above, does not have a contingency nor does
the second order (the cancel-replacement order) once it is live, the
Exchange does not believe it is relevant to display the cancel-replace
contingency, because there would be no impact on responses.
    The Exchange is also proposing to provide that COLA Sweeps do not
have priority over market maker Complex Orders. This is a correction to
the rule text. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate for market
maker COLA Sweeps and Complex Orders to be treated the same way for
priority purposes, because they are coming from the same type of market
participant, a market maker.\24\ The Exchange believes that this should
promote just and equitable principles of trade, because market
participants could reasonably expect that their interest should be
treated the same way whether entered as an order or as a COLA
Sweep.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Although non-SQT ROTs cannot submit COLA Sweeps, their
Complex Orders are treated the same way as the Complex Orders of
other market makers, including that their orders can interact with a
COLA-eligible order.
    \25\ Complex Orders could be responsive to a particular COLA or
could be an unrelated order. Because Complex Orders are not
specifically marked as ``COLA responses,'' the Phlx XL System cannot
identify which Complex Orders are truly intended to respond to the
auction and which are merely coincidental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, this priority treatment is similar to the Exchange's
priority rule respecting orders other than Complex Orders, as well as
the comparable rules of other options exchanges, because a market
maker's interest at a particular price is combined regardless of the
method of entry (quote, COLA Sweep or order).\26\ Specifically, Rule
1014(g)(vii), in calculating a market maker's participation, takes into
account both quotes and orders, as indicated by the following language
in the formula of the rule: based on the number of Phlx XL Participants
quoting or with limit orders at BBO. Accordingly, the Exchange believes
that the correction to the priority provision does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, and does not
impose a significant burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Phlx Rule 1014(g)(vii)(B)(1)(b). Like COLA Sweeps,
Sweeps are treated the same way as other market maker quotes in the
Phlx XL System. See also BX Options Rules, Chapter VI, Section
10(1)(A) and (B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, this priority change is not unfairly discriminatory
with respect to non-SQT ROTs (who cannot submit COLA Sweeps); in fact,
it is fairer to them, because it will no longer give COLA Sweeps
priority over other market maker Complex Orders.
    The Exchange is also proposing to make the Complex Order rule, Rule
1080.08, more complete by listing in subparagraph (b)(v) the types of
orders and contingencies that can be accepted as Complex Orders. The
four types to be listed (all-or-none, cancel-replacement, limit and
market) are all existing orders types and contingencies on Phlx. The
Exchange believes that this should promote just and equitable
principles of trade as well as protect investors and the public
interest by making more clear how specifically Complex Orders can be
designated. The Exchange notes that although all-or-none Complex Orders
are only available to non-broker-dealer customers, this is not unfairly
discriminatory, because it is common for certain types of orders to be
available to certain participant types. For example, all-or-none orders
that are not Complex Orders can only be entered for non-broker-dealer
customers in the Exchange's Phlx XL system.\27\ Similarly, with respect
to complex order programs on other options exchanges, at the discretion
of the exchange, some participants may not be able to initiate \28\ or
respond \29\ to a complex order auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i)(A).
    \28\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(i)(2), NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(1) and
NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(e)(1).
    \29\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(iii), NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(c)(4) and
NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(e)(4).

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

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

    The Exchange 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, as amended.
Specifically, the proposal does not impose an intra-market burden on
competition, because the same COLA Message with the same information
will be available to all Phlx participants who receive Complex Order
Messages and such messages are available to those who choose to
subscribe, for a fee. Nor will the proposal impose a burden on
competition among the options exchanges, because of the vigorous
competition for order flow among the options exchanges. Market
participants who find contingency information respecting complex orders
important will continue to be able to receive that information when
participating on competing exchanges.
    With respect to the aspect of the proposal that addresses the
priority of market maker Complex Orders and COLA Sweeps executing after
a COLA, the Exchange believes that this change does not impose a burden
on competition, because it treats all interest received from a market
maker the same way and does not change the way other intra-market
interest is handled. To the extent that market participants disagree
with the particular approach taken by the Exchange herein, market
participants can easily and readily direct complex order flow to
competing venues.
    With respect to the aspect of the proposal that adopts specific
order types and contingencies applicable to Complex Orders, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposal imposes a burden on inter-
market competition. Most of these order types and contingencies are
available to all participants. Although all-or-none Complex Orders can
only be entered by non-broker-dealer customers, the Exchange does not
believe that this imposes a burden on competition, because: (i) As
stated above, all-or-none Complex Orders are rare, both in terms of how
many start a COLA and how many are received; and (ii) it is common both
on the Exchange (respecting non-Complex Orders) and on other options
exchanges to offer only certain functionality to certain
participants.\30\ The Exchange notes that this particular functionality
is only available for non-Complex Orders on Phlx to non-broker-dealer
customers.\31\ Nor does the proposal impose a burden on intra-market
competition, because most of these order types are available to all
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra notes 27-29.
    \31\ See supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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)(ii) of the Act \32\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule 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-Phlx-2014-39 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-Phlx-2014-39. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-39 and should be
submitted on or before July 7, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13823 Filed 6-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46385-46386]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2015-0070]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated June 24, 2015, Florida East Coast Railway (FECR) has petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance
from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations
contained at 49 CFR part

240-Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers, and Part
242-Qualification and Certification of Conductors. The relief is
contingent on FECR's implementation of and participation in the
Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS) pilot project. FRA
assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2015-0070.
    FECR seeks to shield reporting employees and the railroad from
mandatory punitive sanctions that would otherwise arise as provided in
49 CFR 240.117(e)(1)-(4); 240.305(a)(l)-(4) and (a)(6); 240.307;
242.403(b), (c), (e)(l)-(4), (e)(6)-(11), (f)(l)-(2); and 242.407. The
C\3\RS pilot project encourages certified operating crew members to
report close calls and protects employees and the railroad from
discipline or sanctions arising from the incidents reported per the
C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by September 18, 2015 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 29, 2015.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2015-19086 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30664-30667]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0503; Product Identifier 2018-SW-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Leonardo S.p.a. (Leonardo) Model AW189 helicopters. This
proposed AD would require various repetitive inspections of the main
rotor (MR) damper. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of in-
service MR damper failures and the development of an improved MR
damper. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of the
lead-lag damping function of the MR blade, possibly resulting in damage
to adjacent critical rotor components and subsequent loss control of
the helicopter. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0503; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European
Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. The FAA also invites comments
relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts
that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The
most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if
comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one
time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal,
the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the
comments received.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016-0145R1, dated January 17,
2018 (EASA AD 2016-0145R1), to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo
S.p.A. Model AW189 helicopters with MR damper part number (P/N)
4F6220V00251 installed. EASA advises that a MR damper failed, which
resulted in complete seizure of the body end lug and an in-flight
disconnection of the damper. EASA states that a combination of factors
may have contributed to the MR damper disconnection, and that this
condition could result in loss of the lead-lag damping function of the
MR blade, damage to adjacent critical rotor components, and subsequent
reduced control of the helicopter. The contributing factors include
cracks, slippage marks, damaged broach ring teeth, and loss of torque.
    According to EASA, the AW189 MR damper is a similar design to the
MR dampers installed on Model AW139 helicopters, where multiple MR
damper failures have been reported involving the body end lug, the eye
end lug, and the rod end. To correct this condition, EASA issued a
series of superseded and revised ADs to require repetitive inspections
of certain MR dampers, and similar corrective actions as those for
Model AW139 helicopters. EASA AD 2016-0145R1 requires various one-time
and repetitive inspections of the MR damper, a torque check of the
damper body end, and replacing any MR damper with a crack or that fails
the torque check. EASA AD 2016-0145R1 also allows installation of a new
MR damper, P/N 8G6220V00151, as an optional terminating action for the
repetitive inspections.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an
unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of
the same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Finmeccanica Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-080,
Revision A, dated July 15, 2016, which contains procedures for visual
and dye penetrant inspections of the MR damper for cracks and for
verifying the torque of the damper body ends.
    The FAA also reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin
No. 189-102, Revision A, dated December 21, 2017, which contains
procedures for installing an MR damper with reduced torque values and
specifies replacing MR damper P/N 4F6220V00251 with new MR damper P/N
8G6220V00151.
    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.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Finmeccanica Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-069, dated
February 12, 2016, which contains procedures for installing a special
washer on the MR damper rod end, modifying the installation torque of
the MR damper, and inspecting the rod end bearings.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require compliance with certain procedures
described in the manufacturer's service bulletins. For helicopters with
a MR damper P/N 4F6220V00251, this proposed AD would require:
     Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), reducing the
installation torque of the nuts on the bolts attaching the MR damper to
the MR hub;
     Within 30 hours TIS or before a MR damper body end
accumulates 500 hours TIS since first installation on a helicopter,
whichever occurs later, and, thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500
hours TIS, replacing the affected MR damper;
     Before the MR damper accumulates 300 hours TIS since new
or overhaul, dye penetrant or eddy current inspecting the rod end and
body end of each MR damper for a crack, and thereafter, before the
first flight of each day, visually inspecting the rod end and body end
of each MR damper for a crack. If there is a crack, this proposed AD
would require replacing the MR damper;
     Within 30 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not
exceeding 10 hours TIS for MR dampers that have accumulated less than
300 hours TIS since new or overhaul or within 5 hours TIS and therefore
before the first flight of each day for MR dampers that have
accumulated 300 or more hours TIS since new or overhaul, inspecting
each rod end and body end bearing for rotation, and replacing the rod
end or MR damper as applicable if there is any rotation;
     For certain serial-numbered MR dampers, within 30 hours
TIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 20 hours TIS, inspecting
the lag damper broached ring nut for damage, correct engagement, and
alignment. If there is damage on the ring nut, incorrect engagement, or
mis-alignment, this proposed AD would require removing the rod end and
broached ring nut from service. These repetitive inspections would
terminate after the MR damper has accumulated 600 hours TIS;
     Within 50 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not
exceeding 100 hours TIS, inspecting the bearing friction torque of each
MR damper body end and rod end, and replacing the MR damper if the
torque value exceeds 30.0 Nm (265.5 lb in);
     Within 50 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not
exceeding 100 hours TIS, inspecting the MR damper anti-rotation block
for wear and replacing the anti-rotation block if there is wear beyond
acceptable limits;

     Within 50 hours TIS, replacing each special washer P/N
3G6220A05051 with special washer P/N 3G6220A05052;
     For certain MR dampers, within 50 hours TIS, inspecting
the broached ring for damage and alignment, removing the broached ring
from service if there is damage, and replacing the broached ring if the
rod end and broached ring cannot be aligned; and
     Prior to installation on any helicopter, inspecting
certain serial-numbered MR dampers for correct torque of the broached
ring.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires contacting the manufacturer under certain
conditions, while this proposed AD would not.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD would affect 3 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85
per work-hour.
    Adjusting the tightening torque would require about 10 work-hours,
for an estimated cost of $850 per helicopter and $2,550 for the U.S.
fleet.
    Replacing an MR damper would require about 2 work-hours, and parts
would cost about $18,000, for an estimated cost of $18,170 per MR
damper.
    Performing a dye penetrant or eddy current inspection of the MR
damper would require about 8 work-hours, for an estimated cost of $680
per helicopter and $2,040 for the U.S. fleet.
    Visually inspecting the rod ends and body ends would require about
0.5 hour, for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $129 for the
U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
    Inspecting the rod ends and body ends for bearing rotation would
require about 0.5 hour, for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and
$129 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
    Inspecting the broached ring nut would require about 0.5 hour, for
an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $129 for the U.S. fleet,
per inspection cycle.
    Inspecting for bearing friction would require about 2 hours, for an
estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $510 for the U.S. fleet, per
inspection cycle.
    Inspecting the broached ring teeth for proper alignment and
applying torque would require about 8 work-hours, for an estimated cost
of $680 per helicopter and $2,040 for the U.S. fleet.
    Replacing a rod end would require about 3 work-hours and parts
would cost about $500, for a cost an estimated cost of $755 per rod
end.
    Replacing a broached ring would require about 3 work-hours and
parts would cost about $100, for an estimated cost of $355, per
broached ring.
    Replacing a broached ring nut would require about 3 work-hours and
parts would cost about $125, for an estimated cost of $380 per broached
ring nut.
    Replacing an anti-rotation block would require about 3 work-hours
and parts would cost about $50, for a cost an estimated cost of $305
per anti-rotation block.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. 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):

Leonardo S.p.a: Docket No. FAA-2020-0503; Product Identifier 2018-
SW-006-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW189 helicopters,
certificated in any category, with a main rotor (MR) damper part
number (P/N) 4F6220V00251 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in an MR damper,
which if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of the lead-
lag damping function of the MR blade, resulting in damage of the MR
damper, detachment of the MR damper in-flight, and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by July 20, 2020.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), reduce the torque of
the nut on the bolt attaching each MR damper to the MR hub by
following paragraphs 4 through 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions,
Part I, of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. 189-102,
Revision A, dated December 21, 2017 (ASB 189-102).
    (2) Within 30 hours TIS or before the MR damper body end (body
end) accumulates 500 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS, replace the MR
damper.
    (3) Within 30 hours TIS, before the MR damper accumulates 300
hours TIS, or within 300 hours TIS since the last overhaul,
whichever occurs later, dye penetrant inspect using a 5X power
magnifying glass or eddy current inspect each MR damper rod end (rod
end) and body end for a crack in the areas depicted in Figure 2 of
Finmeccanica Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-080, Revision A, dated July
15, 2016 (BT 189-080).
    (i) If there is a crack on the body end, before further flight,
replace the MR damper.
    (ii) If there is a crack on the rod end, before further flight,
replace the rod end and, within 300 hours TIS, dye penetrant or eddy
current

inspect the rod end for a crack as described in paragraph (e)(3) of
this AD.
    (iii) If there are no cracks, before further flight, mark the
rod end and body end with a dot of black polyurethane paint as shown
in Figure 13 of BT 189-080.
    (iv) Thereafter, before the first flight of each day, using a
mirror and a magnifying glass visually inspect each rod end and body
end for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 14 of BT 189-080. If
there is a crack in the rod end, before further flight, replace the
rod end. If there is a crack on the body end, before further flight,
replace the MR damper.
    (4) Within the compliance times listed in paragraphs (e)(4)(i)
and (ii) of this AD, inspect each rod end bearing and body end for
bearing rotation in the damper seat. An example of rotation
(misaligned slippage marks) is shown in Figure 4 of BT 189-080. If
there is any bearing rotation in the rod end, before further flight,
replace the rod end. If there is any bearing rotation in the body
end, before further flight, replace the MR damper.
    (i) For MR dampers that have accumulated less than 300 hours TIS
since new or since the last overhaul, within 30 hours TIS and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS.
    (ii) For MR dampers that have accumulated 300 or more hours TIS
since new or since the last overhaul, within 5 hours TIS and
thereafter before the first flight of each day.
    (5) For helicopters with an MR damper with a serial number (S/N)
MCR0001 through MCR0154 and MCR0174 through MCR0195, within 30 hours
TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20 hours TIS until the
MR damper has accumulated 600 hours TIS, visually inspect each MR
damper broached ring nut for broken teeth, proper engagement, and
alignment as depicted in Figure 5 and shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8
of BT 189-080. If there is a broken tooth, improper engagement, or
misalignment of the broached ring nut, before further flight, remove
from service the rod end and broached ring nut.
    (6) Within 50 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 100 hours TIS:
    (i) Rotate the body end around the damper axis to put it near
the middle position and determine the bearing friction torque value
of the body end, using as a reference Figure 11 of BT 189-080.

    Note 1 to Paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this AD: Applying too much
force while rotating the body end around the damper axis may cause
damage.

    (A) If the torque value of the body end is more than 30.0 Nm
(265.5 in lb), before further flight, replace the MR damper.
    (B) If the torque value of the body end is 30.0 Nm (265.5 in lb)
or less, determine the bearing friction torque value of each rod
end, using as a reference Figure 11 of BT 189-080. If the torque
value of the rod end is more than 30.0 Nm (265.5 in lb), before
further flight, replace the rod end.
    (ii) Inspect each MR damper anti-rotation block for wear by
following paragraphs 4.3 through 4.3.6 of the Compliance
Instructions, Part VI, of BT 189-080. If there is wear, before
further flight, replace the MR damper anti-rotation block.
    (7) Within 50 hours TIS:
    (i) On each MR damper, replace special washer P/N 3G6220A05051
with special washer P/N 3G6220A05052.
    (ii) For helicopters with an MR damper with a S/N MCR0001
through MCR0041, MCR0043, MCR0045 through MCR0151, MCR0153 through
MCR0157, MCR0159 through MCR 0179, and MCR0185 through MCR0370; and
for MR dampers with a rod end P/N M006-01H004-045 or P/N M006-
01H004-053 installed, do the following:
    (A) Inspect each broached ring for wear, bent teeth, missing
teeth, and stripped threads. Pay particular attention to the four
pins that engage the piston grooves. If there is any wear or damage
to the broached ring, before further flight, remove from service the
broached ring. An example of an acceptable broached ring is shown in
Figure 4, Annex A, of BT 189-080.
    (B) Align each rod end and broached ring by applying a torque of
60 Nm (531 in lb) to 80 Nm (708 in lb). If the rod end and broached
ring cannot be aligned, before further flight, replace the broached
ring.
    (8) Except for MR dampers with a S/N MCR0042, MCR0044, MCR0152,
MCR0158, and MCR0180 through MCR0184, do not install an MR damper P/
N 4F6220V00251 on any helicopter unless the MR damper has passed the
requirements in paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this AD.

(f) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Compliance Instructions, Part II, of
Finmeccanica Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-069, dated February 12, 2016
(BT 189-069), are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions in paragraph (e)(7)(i) of this AD.
    (2) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Compliance Instructions, Part III, of BT 189-
069, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
actions in paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior
Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft
Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Finmeccanica Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-069, dated February
12, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A.
Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta
520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-
225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view the referenced service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
No. 2016-0145R1, dated January 17, 2018. You may view the EASA AD on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main Rotor
System.

    Issued on May 14, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-10752 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61671-61672]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0154]

Anchorage Regulations; Multiple Anchorages on the Mississippi
River From MM 12 AHP to MM 85 AHP

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are requesting your comments regarding potential changes to
multiple anchorages along the Mississippi River from mile marker (MM)
12 ahead of passes (AHP), to MM 85 AHP. Pilot associations have
requested the Coast Guard to consider these potential changes because
they believe there are currently not enough anchorage grounds along the
river system to facilitate the safe anchorage of shallow and deep draft
vessels. In this document we identify anchorage grounds locations that
we have been requested to establish, expand or revise. We seek your
comments on whether we should consider modifying our anchorage grounds
regulations covering MM 12 AHP to MM 85 AHP, and if so, how.

DATES: Your comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on
or before November 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0154 using the Federal portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See
the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
potential rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Corinne
Plummer, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

AHP Above Head of Passes
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port New Orleans
CRPPA Crescent River Port Pilots' Association
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LDB Left Descending Bank
LMR Lower Mississippi River
MM Mile Marker
MNSA Maritime Navigation Safety Association

NOI Notice of Inquiry
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RDB Right Descending Bank
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is issuing this Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to solicit
comments from industry, the maritime community, local stakeholders and
other interested persons regarding potential multiple changes to
anchorages along the Lower Mississippi River (LMR). The Coast Guard was
approached by industry, who identified multiple locations along the LMR
where an anchorage could potentially be established, expanded or
revised in order to accommodate the increasing vessel traffic along the
Lower Mississippi River. The authority for the Coast Guard to establish
or amend anchorage ground regulations is found in 33 U.S.C. 471 and
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The requesting
document is available in the docket.
    There are currently 12 established anchorage grounds along the
Lower Mississippi River between MM 12 AHP and MM 85 AHP that total of
33.54 statute miles of approved anchorage area, longitudinally along
the Lower Mississippi River. The potential changes would add an
additional 3.75 statute miles of longitudinal anchorage area. Those
additions are broken into the following: 2.65 miles of space would be
added to current anchorage grounds and 1.1 miles would be created in
two new anchorage grounds locations.
    At this time, the potential changes to these anchorage grounds
would not affect the width of the previously established anchorage
grounds, only the overall length of the anchorages. Current anchorage
widths within this area of the Mississippi River from MM12-MM85 range
from 400' to 800'. The anchorage grounds widths are listed in the table
below for reference purposes.
    The current anchorages regulations for this area of the LMR can be
found in 33 CFR 110.195. The recommended changes are listed in
ascending mile-marker order as follows:

                                                     Potential Changes to Existing Anchorage Grounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Existing     33 CFR
          Anchorage name                      Change                   Existing location               Recommended location          width      110.195
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boothville........................  Expand 0.95 Miles........  MM 13.0-18.5....................  MM 12.05-18.5..................        750'      (a)(4)
Point Michel......................  Expand 0.8 Miles.........  MM 40.8-42.2....................  MM 40.0-42.2...................        500'     (a)(35)
Magnolia..........................  Expand 0.1 Miles.........  MM 45.5-47.6....................  MM 45.4-47.6...................        700'      (a)(7)
Davant............................  Expand 0.3 Miles.........  MM 52.8-53.9....................  MM 52.5-53.9...................        800'      (a)(9)
Alliance..........................  Expand 0.2 Miles.........  MM 63.8-65.8....................  MM 63.6-65.8...................        400'     (a)(10)
Wills Point.......................  Shift up river 0.02 Miles  MM 66.5-67.6....................  MM 66.7-67.9...................        600'     (a)(11)
                                     and Expand 0.15 Miles.
Cedar Grove.......................  Add language to protect    MM 69.56-70.9...................  N/A............................        500'     (a)(12)
                                     revetments, cables and
                                     pipelines.
Belle Chasse......................  Expand 0.05 Miles........  MM 73.1-75.2....................  MM 73.05-75.2..................        575'     (a)(13)
Lower 12 Mile Point...............  Add language to protect    MM 78.6-80.8....................  N/A............................        500'     (a)(14)
                                     revetments, cables and
                                     pipelines.
Lower 9 Mile Point................  Expand 0.1 Miles.........  MM 82.7-85.0....................  MM 82.6-85.0...................        500'     (a)(15)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         Potential New Anchorage Grounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Anchorage name                            Change                             Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix.................................  Establish 0.6 Miles Length x      MM 57.82-58.42
                                           400' Width on the Left
                                           Descending Bank.
Bertrandville...........................  Establish 0.5 Miles Length x      MM 68.5-69.0
                                           400' Width on the Left
                                           Descending Bank.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Requested

    We seek your comments on whether we should consider modifying the
anchorage grounds regulations covering MM 12 AHP to MM 85 AHP based on
this report, and if so, how. In particular, the Coast Guard requests
your input to determine if there remains a need for additional
anchorage grounds in this area, and if so, to what extent and for what
purpose; if the establishment of two additional anchorage grounds and
the recommended changes to expand currently regulated anchorage grounds
would meet current and anticipated industry needs; or if other options
should be considered.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using
https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. In your submission, please include the docket number for
this notice of inquiry and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's rulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this notice of inquiry as being available in
the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that
website's instructions.
    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: September 18, 2020.
J.P. Nadeau,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard District Eight.
[FR Doc. 2020-21056 Filed 9-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 98 (Monday, May 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 27843]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-12-000]

Electrification and the Grid of the Future; Notice Inviting Post-
Technical Conference Comments

    On April 29, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) convened a technical conference to discuss electrification
and the grid of the future.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments to address issues raised during the technical
conference and identified in the Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conference issued April 14, 2021. For reference, the questions included
in the Supplemental Notice are included below. Commenters need not
answer all of the questions, but commenters are encouraged to organize
responses using the numbering and order in the below questions.
Commenters are also invited to reference material previously filed in
this docket but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of
previous material. Comments must be submitted on or before 45 days from
the date of this Notice.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.\1\
Instructions are available on the Commission's website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

Michael Hill (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sarah Greenberg (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
(202) 502-6230<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 17, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-10836 Filed 5-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79078-79079]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27025]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meeting; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors Meeting

TIME AND DATE: December 10, 2020, from Noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE: This meeting will be accessible via conference call and screen
sharing. Any interested person may call<PHONE_NUMBER> (US toll free),
888-788-0099 (US toll free), +1<PHONE_NUMBER> (US toll), or +1 669-900-
6833 (US toll), Conference ID 977 6073 0690, to participate in the
meeting.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the ``Board'') will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement. The
subject matter of the meeting will include:

Agenda

I. Welcome and Call to Order--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Board, confirm the presence of a quorum, and
facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify publication of the meeting
notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact list via
email followed by subsequent publication of the notice in the Federal
Register.

III. Review and Approval of Board Agenda--UCR Board Chair

For Discussion and Possible Action
    Agenda will be reviewed and the Board will consider adoption.
Ground Rules
[rtarr8] Board actions taken only in designated areas on agenda

IV. Approval of Minutes of the November 5, 2020 UCR Board Meeting--UCR
Board Chair

For Discussion and Possible Action
    Draft Minutes of the November 5, 2020 UCR Board meeting will be
reviewed. The Board will consider action to approve.

V. Report of FMCSA--FMCSA Representative

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will
provide a report on any relevant activity.

VI. Updates Concerning UCR Legislation--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will call for any updates regarding UCR
legislation since the last Board meeting.

VII. Discussion Regarding Development of Board Policy for the Mailing
of Postcards--UCR Executive Director

For Discussion and Possible Action
    The UCR Executive Director will lead a discussion regarding the
need for states and the Board to mail postcards to unregistered
carriers. Items to consider may include defining the window of time for
states/Board to mail postcards and require states to participate in
solicitation campaigns. After discussing options, the Board may decide
to adopt a policy regarding the requirements for mailing postcards to
unregistered carriers.

VIII. Potential Contract Extensions for AAG3 LLC and DSL Transportation
Services, Inc.--UCR Board Chair

For Discussion and Possible Action
    The UCR Chair will lead a discussion of the annual renewal of
existing contracts with AAG3 LLC (Avelino Gutierrez) and DSL
Transportation Services, Inc. (Dave Lazarides). The Board may decide to
renew the contracts for an additional one-year term.

IX. Chief Legal Officer Report--UCR Chief Legal Officer

    The UCR Chief Legal Officer will provide an update on the status of
the March 2019 data event, the Twelve Percent Logistics litigation,
several cease and desist letters sent to third party permitting service
providers, and other matters.

X. Update on the RSM Security Assessment Pertaining to the NRS Audit--
UCR Technology Director

    The UCR Technology Director will provide an update on the security
assessment deliverables from RSM's security team pertaining to the NRS
Audit.

 AWS Security Assessment
 Cloud Vulnerability and Configuration Review Sample
 RSM Sample Penetration Testing Report

XI. Subcommittee Reports

Audit Subcommittee--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair

A. Next Steps Regarding the 2019 Audit Deficiencies by Idaho and Utah--
UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair
For Discussion and Possible Action
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will discuss the next steps
regarding the 2019 Audit Deficiencies by Idaho and Utah. The Board may
authorize additional action to be taken against Idaho and Utah.
B. Consideration of the Addition of a UCR Auditor/Enforcement Manager--
UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair
For Discussion and Possible Action
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will lead a discussion considering
the potential addition of a UCR Auditor/Enforcement Manager to provide
mentoring and other audit assistance to participating states. The Board
may take action to add a UCR Auditor/Enforcement Manager and include
that position in the budget for fiscal year 2021.
C. Discuss the Possible Requirement for the States to Declare in
Writing Their Audit Policy with Respect to UCR--UCR Audit Subcommittee
Chair
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will lead a discussion of the
possibility of requiring the states to formally declare, in writing,
certain goals, objectives, and procedures with regard to their UCR
audit policy. In addition, the Board may discuss a desire to

maintain a system to better monitor state(s) when turnover in staff
leads to UCR audit and enforcement deficiencies.
D. Independent Auditor's Final Report (2017-2018)--UCR Depository
Manager
    The UCR Depository Manager will discuss the outcome of the
financial statement audits of the Depository for each of the 12- month
periods ended December 31, 2018 and 2017.
E. Consideration of an Audit Contract of the NRS by RSM--UCR Executive
Director
For Discussion and Possible Action
    The UCR Executive Director will lead a discussion around the
consideration and possible approval of an audit contract of the NRS by
RSM. The Board may approve an audit contract between the Board and RSM.
F. FARs Audit Procedure for Motor Carriers in Foreign Jurisdictions and
Non-Participating States--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair
For Discussion and Possible Action
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will lead a discussion on the
unique issues regarding Focused Anomaly Reviews (FARs) of non-United
States based motor carriers and motor carriers based in non-
participating states. The Board may take action to adopt new FARs audit
procedures to be utilized by participating states for these motor
carriers.
G. Discussion of Vehicles Conducting Emergency Operations--UCR Audit
Subcommittee Chair
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will discuss exempting electric
utility and other businesses operating vehicles interstate only when
responding to an emergency or natural disaster from UCR requirements in
accordance with 49 CFR part 390.23, unless the states involved in its
interstate travel have waived those requirements. The Board may take
action to exclude these carriers from Unified Carrier Registration.
H. Update on the Audit Functionality in the National Registration
System--Seikosoft
    Seikosoft will provide updates on the NRS Audit Module,
solicitation campaigns (new entrant, unregistered, non-universe motor
carriers, etc.), and other relevant topics for the Board.

Finance Subcommittee--UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair

A. Discussion Regarding the Board To Self-Insure Against the Risk of
Directors and Officers Liability Claims--UCR Chief Legal Officer and
UCR Depository Manager
For Discussion and Possible Action
    The UCR Chief Legal Officer and the UCR Depository Manager will
lead a discussion regarding the purpose for Officer and Directors
insurance and discuss the cost effectiveness of the option to self-
insure rather than procure insurance from the marketplace. The Board
may decide to self-insure or obtain insurance from the insurance
marketplace.
B. Review UCR Bank Balance Summary Report--UCR Depository Manager
    The UCR Depository Manager will review the UCR Bank Balance Summary
Report as of November 30, 2020 and answer questions from the Board.
C. Review 2020 Administrative Expenses Through November 30, 2020--UCR
Depository Manager
    The UCR Depository Manager will present the administrative costs
incurred for the period of January 1, 2020 through November 30, 2020,
compared to the budget for the same time-period, and discuss all
significant variances.
D. Presentation of the Proposed 2021 Administrative Expenses Budget--
UCR Depository Manager
For Discussion and Possible Action
    The UCR Depository Manager will present the proposed administrative
expenses budget for calendar year 2021 to the Board. The Board may
consider adopting the budget.
E. Status of 2020 and 2021 Registration Years Fee Collections and
Compliance Percentages--UCR Depository Manager
    The UCR Depository Manager will provide updates on the results of
collections and registration compliance rates for the 2020 and 2021
registration years.

Education and Training Subcommittee--UCR Education and Training
Subcommittee Chair

Update on Basic Audit Training Module and Flow Chart/Decision Tree--UCR
Education and Training Subcommittee Chair
    The UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair will provide an
update on the development of the Basic Audit Training Module and Flow
Chart/Decision Tree.

XII. Contractor Reports--UCR Executive Director

 UCR Executive Director
    The UCR Executive Director will provide a report covering recent
activity for the UCR Plan.
 DSL Transportation Services, Inc.
    DSL Transportation Services, Inc. will report on the latest data
from the FARs program, discuss motor carrier inspection results, and
other matters.
 Seikosoft
    Seikosoft will provide an update on recent/new activity related to
the NRS.
 UCR Administrator Report (Kellen)--UCR Operations and
Depository Managers

    The UCR Administrator will provide its management report covering
recent activity for the Depository, Operations, and Communications.

XIII. Public Comment--James Lamb

    Mr. Lamb will be allotted five (5) minutes to address the UCR
Board.

XIV. Other Business--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will call for any business, old or new, from
the floor.

XV. Adjournment--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    This agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
December 3, 2020 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2020-27025 Filed 12-4-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18558-18560]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08969]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0657; FRL-9977-18-OLEM]
RIN 2050-ZA11

Planning for Natural Disaster Debris and Related Guidance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making
available for public comment three draft documents: Planning for
Natural Disaster Debris; Pre-incident All-hazards Waste Management Plan
Guidelines: Four-step Waste Management Planning Process; and All-
hazards Waste Management Decision Diagram. The Planning for Natural
Disaster Debris guidance is intended to assist communities in planning
for debris management before a natural disaster occurs (also referred
to as ``pre-incident debris management planning''). This guidance
revises EPA's existing guidance document on planning for natural
disaster debris that was published in 2008 under the same name. The
other two documents describe, respectively, the pre-incident waste
management planning process for all hazards and the waste management
decision-making process during an all-hazards incident. Pre-incident
planning can significantly aid decision-making during a response and
enhance a community's resiliency. Pre-incident planning can also help
communities recover faster, spend less money on cleanup and debris/
waste management, and use fewer resources to rebuild and recover.

DATES: Comments received by June 26, 2018 will be considered in the
development of the final guidance.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2017-0657, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include

discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Kaps, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
703-308-6787; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Planning for Natural Disaster Debris Guidance

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) draft Planning
for Natural Disaster Debris Guidance provides planning suggestions and
considerations to assist the whole community (i.e., all governmental,
private, nonprofit, community, and other stakeholders) in preparing for
debris management before a natural disaster occurs. Communities that
may benefit from the advice presented in this document include those
that are currently without a debris management plan, are in the
beginning stages of the debris management planning process, or have
existing debris management plans that are not comprehensive or have not
been updated with new information. Plans should be updated regularly to
keep the information current (e.g., record reductions in existing
disposal capacity, include innovative reuse or recycling
opportunities), and plans should also be exercised (i.e., activities
should be conducted to test or evaluate components of the plan) to
ensure that the whole community remains familiar with their roles and
responsibilities in the implementation of the disaster debris plan.
    Updating the 2008 version of EPA's Planning for Natural Disaster
Debris, this guidance adds information drawn from communities'
experiences with natural disasters, including hurricanes, earthquakes,
tornadoes, volcanoes, floods, wildfires, and winter storms, and
provides more planning recommendations, resources, and lessons learned
for managing natural disaster debris. Also, this guidance walks through
EPA's pre-incident debris management planning process. This process has
four steps to help prepare communities for effective debris management:
(1) Conduct pre-planning activities; (2) develop a comprehensive pre-
incident debris management plan; (3) keep the debris management plan
updated; and (4) implement the debris management plan during a natural
disaster.
    Natural disasters generate large amounts of debris that communities
must manage to fully recover from the disaster. Debris management is
often one of the biggest costs for a response, and recovery is not
complete until all debris has been managed. Pre-incident debris
management planning can significantly aid decision-making during a
natural disaster by allowing important analyses and considerations to
be made in advance, i.e., not during a disaster response. Pre-incident
planning can also enhance a community's resiliency by, for example,
identifying (and mitigating) potential debris sources in advance. In
the event of a disaster, a more resilient community generates less
debris to manage and contains fewer hazardous materials that may pose
an increased risk to human health and the environment if released.
Resilient communities recover faster, spend less money on cleanup and
debris management, and use fewer resources to rebuild and recover.
Effective planning addresses source reduction and hazard mitigation
activities to reduce the amount and toxicity of debris generated by a
natural disaster; strategies for reuse and recycling of materials to
minimize the environmental and economic impact of debris management
activities; and issues and considerations beyond initial debris
removal. Such considerations include characterizing and processing
(e.g., volume reduction, refrigerant removal) debris for proper
management, tracking debris to its final destination, and communicating
with the public about debris collection and other management
activities. For these reasons, EPA believes it is critical that
communities include debris management planning in their overall
preparation for natural disasters.
    EPA invites comment on this document from the public, especially
from persons who are engaged in those aspects of natural disaster
debris management planning that are addressed in this draft guidance.
EPA is also interested in lessons learned or success stories from
communities that may further illustrate the importance of pre-incident
debris management planning. EPA is particularly interested in receiving
information on communities' experiences with the 2017 hurricanes and
wildfires and requests lessons learned from those natural disasters.
Finally, EPA is interested in any examples where communities have
tracked debris from collection to its final destination. EPA will
review any public comments submitted by the deadline and determine
whether and how to revise the document, as appropriate, for the
intended scope and use of this guidance. A copy of this guidance can be
found on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/homeland-security-waste/comment-period-open-draft-update-planning-natural-disaster-debris-guidance.

B. Related Documents on All-Hazards Waste Management

    EPA's Pre-incident All-hazards Waste Management Plan Guidelines:
Four-step Waste Management Planning Process describes the cyclical and
ongoing process of waste management planning for all hazards, including
natural disasters. It breaks down the planning process into four steps
that cover the initiation, creation, maintenance, and implementation of
a waste/debris management plan. It contains a suggested pre-incident
waste management plan outline that can be used to prepare for all types
of homeland security incidents and identifies potential issues,
resources, and tips to help with plan development. Its companion
document, the All-hazards Waste Management Decision Diagram, describes
the waste management decision-making process during homeland security
incidents, including natural disasters. It provides information to
consider when making decisions during an incident response and
identifies areas where pre-incident waste management planning can be
useful.
    EPA invites comment on these documents from the public, especially
from persons who are engaged in those aspects of waste management
planning that are addressed in these documents. EPA will review any
public comments submitted by the deadline and determine whether and how
to revise the documents, as appropriate, for the intended scope and use
of these documents. Copies of these documents can be found on EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/homeland-security-waste/comment-period-open-draft-update-planning-natural-disaster-debris-guidance.

    Dated: April 18, 2018.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2018-08969 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78920]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30590]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.
Extension:
    Rule 15c2-7, SEC File No. 270-420, OMB Control No. 3235-0479.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
15c2-7 (17 CFR 240.15c2-7) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 15c2-7 places disclosure requirements on broker-dealers who
have correspondent relationships, or agreements identified in the rule,
with other broker-dealers. Whenever any such broker-dealer enters a
quotation for a security through an inter-dealer quotation system, Rule
15c2-7 requires the broker-dealer to disclose these relationships and
agreements in the manner required by the rule. The inter-dealer
quotation system must also be able to make these disclosures public in
association with the quotation the broker-dealer is making.
    When Rule 15c2-7 was adopted in 1964, the information it requires
was necessary for execution of the Commission's mandate under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prevent fraudulent, manipulative and
deceptive acts by broker-dealers. In the absence of the information
collection required under Rule 15c2-7, investors and broker-dealers
would have been unable to accurately determine the market depth of, and
demand for, securities in an inter-dealer quotation system.
    There are approximately 4,342 broker-dealers registered with the
Commission. Any of these broker-dealers could be potential respondents
for Rule 15c2-7, so the Commission is using that number as the number
of respondents. Rule 15c2-7 applies only to quotations entered into an
inter-dealer quotation system, such as the OTC Bulletin Board
(``OTCBB'') or OTC Link (formerly ``Pink Sheets''), operated by OTC
Markets Group Inc. (``OTC Link''). According to representatives of both
OTC Link and the OTCBB, neither entity has recently received, or
anticipates receiving any Rule 15c2-7 notices. However, because such
notices could be made, the Commission estimates that one filing is made
annually pursuant to Rule 15c2-7.
    Based on prior industry reports, the Commission estimates that the
average time required to enter a disclosure pursuant to the rule is .75
minutes, or 45 seconds. The Commission sees no reason to change this
estimate. We estimate that impacted respondents spend a total of .0125
hours per year to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-7 (1 notice
(x) 45 seconds/notice).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to
OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: December 23, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30590 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P