[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13045-13048]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0377]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 17 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2017. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0377 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or

Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours
each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we
received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears
after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 17 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Chad C. Burnett

    Mr. Burnett, 41, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
50. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``After
careful assessment of patient Chad Burnett for a complete eye vision
and health exam on 5-3-2016, I feel Chad would be visually qualified to
obtain his CMV license for driving.'' Mr. Burnett reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 720,000 miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Lesco R. Chubb

    Mr. Chubb, 68, has had a central retinal vein occlusion in his left
eye since 2006. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2016, his
optometrist stated that Mr. Chubb does have sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a CMV. Mr. Chubb reported
that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years,
accumulating 3.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Stephen M. Currie

    Mr. Currie, 60, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1989. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2016, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Currie has operated a commercial
vehicle with his prosthetic right eye for years. Nothing has changed in
his vision or peripheral vision to indicate that he cannot continue to
operate in the same capacity he has been operating for the past several
years.'' Mr. Currie reported that he has driven straight trucks for 26
years, accumulating 1.09 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from
Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Thomas C. Fitzpatrick

    Mr. Fitzpatrick, 72, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left
eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``Mr. Fitzpatrick is able to recognize colors and has no visual
deficiencies that would be any hazard to commercial driving.'' Mr.
Fitzpatrick reported that he has driven straight trucks for 41 years,
accumulating 143,500 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 46
years, accumulating 253,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert D. Hattabaugh

    Mr. Hattabaugh, 53, has complete loss of vision in his right eye
due to a traumatic incident in 2006. The visual acuity in his right eye
is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated that Mr. Hattabaugh
does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a CMV. Mr. Hattabaugh reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 30 years, accumulating 90,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Wade R. Higgins

    Mr. Higgins, 62, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, ``Patient has
sufficient vision to perform driving tasks of commercial vehicle
[sic].'' Mr. Higgins reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5
years, accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Daniel L. Holman

    Mr. Holman, 46, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to
a traumatic incident in 1997. The visual acuity in his right eye is no
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination
in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical opinion Mr. Holman
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Holman reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 9 years, accumulating 180,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL
from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Don N. Hood

    Mr. Hood, 64, has had a corneal scar in his right eye since 1997.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion Mr [sic] hood has more than adequate VA [sic] to
operate [sic] commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hood reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 27 years,

accumulating 280,800 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years,
accumulating 100,000 miles, and buses for 1 year, accumulating 60
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

James S. Hummel

    Mr. Hummel, 66, has phthisis bulbi in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``In summary, he has 20/20
uncorrected and corrected vision in his left eye and no vision in the
right eye, a well-preserved visual field, and normal color testing that
qualifies him to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hummel reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 41 years, accumulating 410,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 6,000 miles.
He holds a Class AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Robert R. Martin

    Mr. Martin, 63, has a cataract in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is count fingers, and in his left eye,
20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated,
``Mr. Martin has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Martin reported that he
has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating
279,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Virginia. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows one crash and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

James C. Montgomery

    Mr. Montgomery, 51, has a retinal scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/150, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2016,
his optometrist stated, ``From a visual standpoint, my medical opinion
is that that [sic] he has the ability to sufficiently perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Montgomery reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years,
accumulating 5,600 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years,
accumulating 16,800. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Huber N. Pena Ortega

    Mr. Pena Ortega, 32, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``It is my medical opinion that Huber Ortega has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Pena Ortega reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10
years, accumulating 200,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
5 years, accumulating 110,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Colorado. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Garry W. Perkins

    Mr. Perkins, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200.
Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, ``It is in my
professional opinion that due to the non-progressive congenital
condition of refractive amblyopia in Mr. Perkins left eye and overall
visual field status and corrected vision OD that there are no visual
concerns for Mr. Perkins to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Perkins
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating
300,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New Hampshire. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Charles M. Reese

    Mr. Reese, 31, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``I do
believe that Mr. Reese has sufficient vision to drive and operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Reese reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 5 years, accumulating 100,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 6 years, accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Wilbur Robinson, Jr.

    Mr. Robinson, 60, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic incident in 1975. The visual acuity in his right eye is
no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``Patient has sufficient
vision to drive commercial truck.'' Mr. Robinson reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 180,000 miles. He
holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Thomas R. Test

    Mr. Test, 38, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic incident childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye
is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion,
Mr. Thomas R. Test has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Test reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 2.6 million
miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Virginia. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for speeding in a
CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 10 MPH.

Steven L. Tiefenthaler

    Mr. Tiefenthaler, 56, has a toxoplasmosis scar in his right eye
since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in
his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``I certify that, in my medical opinion, this
patient has sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle.''
Mr. Tiefenthaler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10
years, accumulating 80,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 25
years, accumulating 3.25 million miles, and buses for 2 years,
accumulating 1,600 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document

so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2016-0377 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2016-0377 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: February 28, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-04525 Filed 3-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 201 (Friday, October 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65886-65888]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22740]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90139; File No. SR-OCC-2020-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Concerning The Options Clearing Corporation's Synthetic Futures Model

October 8, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on September 30, 2020, the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') 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 primarily by OCC. OCC
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of
the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \4\ thereunder so that the
proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    OCC is filing a proposed rule change to expand the use of an
existing OCC margin model. The proposed changes to OCC's Margins
Methodology are contained in confidential Exhibit 5 of filing SR-OCC-
2020-012. Material proposed to be added to the Margins Methodology as
currently in effect is underlined and material proposed to be deleted
is marked in strikethrough text. All capitalized terms not defined
herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and
Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/By-Laws-and-Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(1) Purpose
Background
    On May 15, 2019, the Commission issued a Notice of No Objection to
an advance notice filing by OCC to adopt an enhanced model for
Volatility Index Futures.\6\ On May 16, 2019, the Commission approved a
proposed rule change by OCC concerning the same changes.\7\ The model
enhancements included: (1) The daily re-estimation of prices and
correlations using ``synthetic'' futures; \8\ (2) an enhanced
statistical distribution for modeling price returns for synthetic
futures (i.e., an asymmetric Normal Reciprocal Inverse Gaussian (or
``NRIG'') distribution); and (3) a new anti-procyclical floor for
variance estimates. The main feature of the enhanced model was the
replacement of the use of the underlying index itself as a risk factor
\9\ (e.g., the VIX) with risk factors that are based on observed
futures prices (i.e., the ``synthetic'' futures contracts). These risk
factors are then used in the generation of Monte Carlo scenarios for
the futures by using volatility and correlations obtained from the
existing simulation models in OCC's propriety margin system, the System
for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (``STANS'').\10\
Additionally, the model has the ability to accommodate negative prices
and interest rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85870 (May 15,
2019), 84 FR 23096 (May 21, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-801). Certain indices
are designed to measure the volatility implied by the prices of
options on a particular reference index or asset (``Volatility
Indexes''). For example, the Cboe Volatility Index (``VIX'') is
designed to measure the 30-day expected volatility of the Standard &
Poor's 500 index (``SPX''). OCC clears futures contracts on
Volatility Indexes. These futures contracts are referred to herein
as ``Volatility Index Futures.''
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85873 (May 16,
2019), 84 FR 23620 (May 16, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-002).
    \8\ A ``synthetic'' futures time series, for the intended
purposes of OCC, relates to a uniform substitute for a time series
of daily settlement prices for actual futures contracts, which
persists over many expiration cycles and thus can be used as a basis
for econometric analysis.
    \9\ A ``risk factor'' within OCC's margin system may be defined
as a product or attribute whose historical data is used to estimate
and simulate the risk for an associated product.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53322 (February 15,
2006), 71 FR 9403 (February 23, 2006) (SR-OCC-2004-20). A detailed
description of the STANS methodology is available at http://optionsclearing.com/risk-management/margins/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 10, 2020, OCC filed a proposed rule change to expand the
use of the model, currently known as the ``Synthetic Futures Model,''
to Cboe's AMERIBOR Futures.\11\ OCC now proposes to expand the use of
the Synthetic Futures Model to certain

products planned to be listed by Small Exchange Inc. (``Small'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89392 (July 24,
2020), 85 FR 45938 (July 30, 2020) (SR-OCC-2020-007). AMERIBOR
Futures are futures on the American Interbank Offered Rate
disseminated by the American Financial Exchange, LLC, which is a
transactions-based interest rate benchmark that represents market-
based borrowing costs (http://www.cboe.com/products/futures/ameribor-futures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Changes
    On December 6, 2019, OCC filed a proposed rule change to execute an
Agreement for Clearing and Settlement Services between OCC and Small in
connection with Small's intention to operate as a designated contract
market regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.\12\ Small
plans to launch new futures products linked to indexes comprised of
continuous yields based on the most recently issued (i.e., ``on-the-
run'') U.S. Treasury notes (``Small Treasury Yield Index
Futures'').\13\ OCC proposes to extend the use of its Synthetic Futures
Model to these Small Treasury Yield Index Futures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87774 (December 17,
2019), 84 FR 70602 (December 23, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-011).
    \13\ See https://smallexchange.com/products/s10y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Synthetic Futures model maps the price risk factor of a traded
futures product to a synthetic time series constructed from the traded
prices of similar tenor futures in history. This allows the model to
capture differences in volatility of futures across the term structure.
Such differences in volatility are exhibited for futures products whose
underlying deliverable is linked to a different tenor of a market
observable risk factor such as interest rates or volatility. The
initial Small Treasury Yield Futures will be based on the underlying
yield of the on-the-run 10 year U.S. Treasury notes and hence the
volatility of the future will depend on the volatility of the forward
value of the on-the-run treasury yield at future expiry. As a result,
OCC believes that the Synthetic Futures Model would provide more
appropriate margin coverage for Small Treasury Yield Index Futures than
other models in OCC's inventory.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, OCC also maintains a ``Generic Futures
Model,'' which is a simple model based on the cost of carry that is
primarily used to margin equity-like futures such as SPX futures and
can be used to model certain interest rates futures. This model has
certain limitations (e.g., the model cannot currently accommodate
negative prices and rates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC proposes to make certain modifications to its Margins
Methodology to implement the proposed change. Specifically, the Margins
Methodology would be revised to clarify that certain products with
limited price history, such as the Small Treasury Yield Index Futures,
may use proxy data to generate price scenarios for the synthetic
futures. In addition, OCC would revise the Margins Methodology to note
that for Small Treasury Yield Index Futures, OCC would use a fixed NRIG
asymmetry parameter, which OCC believes is better suited to the risk
profile of the product as the asymmetry of returns is primarily on the
left-tail (or negative returns) and already captured by the GARCH model
specifications. Consistent with the original implementation of the
Synthetic Futures Model, the Small Treasury Yield Index Futures will
also use proportional returns in the calibration. Finally, the Margins
Methodology would also be revised to note that OCC would initially use
a fixed scale factor for purposes of determining the long-run variance
floor until sufficient data for the Small Treasury Yield Index Futures
is available for this scale factor to be calibrated on a regular basis.
The scale factor setting will be reviewed periodically based on the
futures data and adjusted, if appropriate.
(2) Statutory Basis
    OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A of the Act \15\ and the rules thereunder applicable to OCC. Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \16\ requires, in part, that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions. The proposed rule change would make minor changes to
OCC's Margins Methodology so that the Synthetic Futures Model can be
used to model Small Treasury Yield Index Futures. OCC believes the
Synthetic Futures Model may provide better margin coverage for these
products than other margin models maintained by OCC. OCC uses the
margin it collects from a defaulting Clearing Member to protect other
Clearing Members from losses as a result of the default and ensure that
OCC is able to continue the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of its cleared products. OCC therefore believes that the
proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement derivatives transactions in accordance with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Act Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i), (iii), and (v) \18\ further
require that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-
based margin system that, among other things: (1) Considers, and
produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular
attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market; (2)
calculates margin sufficient to cover its potential future exposure to
participants in the interval between the last margin collection and the
close out of positions following a participant default; and (3) uses an
appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for
relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across products.
OCC believes that using the Synthetic Futures Model for Small Treasury
Yield Index Futures would produce margin levels commensurate with the
risks and particular attributes of product in question, generate margin
requirements to cover OCC's potential future exposure to its
participants, and appropriately take into account relevant product risk
factors for Small Treasury Yield Index Futures.\19\ In this way, OCC
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i), (iii), and (v).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i), (iii), and (v).
    \19\ OCC has provided backtesting analysis for the proposed
change in confidential Exhibit 3 to filing SR-OCC-2020-012.
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i), (iii), and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act \21\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. OCC does not
believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose a
burden on competition. The Synthetic Futures Model would be used for
Small Treasury Yield Index Futures for all Clearing Members upon the
launch of the new products. OCC does not believe that the proposed rule
change would unfairly inhibit access to OCC's services or disadvantage
or favor any particular user in relationship to another user.
Accordingly, OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would
have any impact or impose a burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\22\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder,\23\ the proposed rule change is filed for
immediate effectiveness because it effects a change in an existing
service of OCC that (i) primarily affects the clearing operations of
OCC with respect to products that are not securities and (ii) does not
significantly affect any securities clearing operations of OCC or any
rights or obligations of OCC with respect to securities clearing or
persons using such securities clearing services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Notwithstanding its immediate effectiveness, implementation
of this rule change will be delayed until this change is deemed
certified under CFTC Rule 40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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-OCC-2020-012 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-OCC-2020-012. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's website at
https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-012 and
should be submitted on or before November 6, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22740 Filed 10-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51730-51732]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21010]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969; FRL-9932-97-Region 5]

Illinois; Disapproval of State Board Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving an
element of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Illinois
regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
and 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the requirements of

the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure
requirements concerning state board requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805 (2006 PM2.5 infrastructure
elements) and EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969 (2008 ozone infrastructure
elements). All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Sarah Arra,
Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

    This rulemaking addresses August 9, 2011, and December 31, 2012,
submissions from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois
EPA) intended to address all applicable infrastructure requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1),
states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision
thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    This specific rulemaking only takes action on the CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirement of these submittals. The majority of the
other infrastructure elements were approved October 29, 2012 (77 FR
65478) and October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62042).

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was
published on June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33458), and EPA received no comments
during the comment period, which ended on July 13, 2015.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is disapproving as proposed a portion of submissions from
Illinois certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the
required infrastructure element under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for
the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. This final disapproval
triggers the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years from the
effective date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the
deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision
before the Administrator promulgates such FIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely disapproves state law as not meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it disapproves a state rule.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements.
Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898.

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 26, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter.

    Dated: August 14, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 52.745 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.745  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Approval and Disapproval--In an August 9, 2011, submittal, and
supplemented on August 25, 2011, and June 27, 2012, Illinois certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is approving Illinois' submission
addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C) with respect to enforcement, (D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility protection, (D)(ii), (E) except for state board
requirements, (F) through (H), (J) except for prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD), and (K) through (M). EPA is not taking action on
(D)(i)(I). EPA is disapproving the state board requirements of (E)(ii).
EPA is disapproving Illinois' submission addressing PSD in (C),
(D)(i)(II), and the PSD portion of (J). Although EPA is disapproving
portions of Illinois' submission addressing PSD, Illinois continues to
implement the Federally promulgated rules for this purpose as they
pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II), and the PSD portion of (J).
* * * * *
    (e) Approval and Disapproval--In a December 31, 2012, submittal,
Illinois certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS except for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA is
approving Illinois' submission addressing the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) with respect to
enforcement, (D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility protection, (D)(ii),
(E) except for state board requirements, (F) through (H), (J) except
for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), and (K) through (M).
EPA is disapproving the state board requirements of (E)(ii). EPA is
disapproving Illinois' submission addressing PSD in (C), (D)(i)(II),
and the PSD portion of (J). Although EPA is disapproving portions of
Illinois' submission addressing PSD, Illinois continues to implement
the Federally promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to
(C), (D)(i)(II), and the PSD portion of (J).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-21010 Filed 8-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15678]
[DOCID:fr02ap07-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER07-552-000 and ER07-552-001]

Hudson Bay Energy Solutions, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

March 26, 2007.
    Hudson Bay Energy Solutions, LLC (Hudson Bay) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule.
The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of
energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Hudson
Bay also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, Hudson Bay requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Hudson Bay.
    On March 20, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Rates--West, granted the requests for blanket
approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the
Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal Register
establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly,
any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approvals of
issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Hudson Bay
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is April 20, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Hudson Bay is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person, provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Hudson Bay, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Hudson Bay's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5943 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 22485]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09071]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2388-003]

The City of Holyoke Gas & Electric Department; Notice of Intent
To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and
Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2388-003.
    c. Date Filed: January 31, 2014.
    d. Submitted By: City of Holyoke Gas & Electric Department.
    e. Name of Project: Holyoke No. 3 Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Between the second and third level canals on the
Holyoke Canal System adjacent to the Connecticut River, in the city of
Holyoke in Hampden County, Massachusetts. The project does not occupy
federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Paul Ducheney, Superintendent,
Holyoke Gas & Electric, 99 Suffolk Street, Holyoke, MA 01040; (413)
536-9340<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Adam Beeco at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Holyoke Gas and Electric filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on January 31, 2014. Holyoke Gas and
Electric provided public notice of its request on February 6, 2014. In
a letter dated April 15, 2014, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Holyoke Gas and Electric's request to use
the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation
Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Holyoke Gas and Electric as
the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Holyoke Gas and Electric filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: April 15, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09071 Filed 4-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5730-5733]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2619]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0042; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-154-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series
705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The existing
AD currently requires a one-time inspection of the main landing gear
(MLG) shock strut assemblies for part and serial numbers; for certain
MLG shock strut assemblies, a one-time inspection of the torque link
apex joint, and corrective actions if necessary; and, for certain MLG
shock strut assemblies, replacement or rework of the apex nut. Since we
issued that AD, we have determined that part and serial numbers for MLG
shock strut assemblies for Model CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 airplanes
were inadvertently omitted from certain requirements of the existing
AD. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in the
existing AD, and would add the previously omitted part and serial
numbers. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct improper
assembly and damage of the MLG torque link apex joint, which could
cause heavy vibration during landing, consequent damage to MLG
components, and subsequent collapse of the MLG.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 Cote-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Quebec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Kowalski, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0042;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-154-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On March 23, 2011, we issued AD 2011-08-04, Amendment 39-16654 (76
FR 20498, April 13, 2011). That AD required actions intended to address
an unsafe condition on Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet
Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-
600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2011-08-04, Amendment 39-16654 (76 FR 20498,
April 13, 2011), we have determined that part and serial numbers for
main landing gear (MLG) shock strut assemblies for Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes were inadvertently omitted from paragraphs (g)
and (h) of that AD. As a result, operators could be inspecting for part
and serial numbers which they do not have, and would, therefore, not be
required to accomplish the actions intended to correct the identified
unsafe condition on those airplanes. Therefore, we have removed
airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD from the
requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD. We have added
new requirements for those airplanes to inspect for the appropriate
part numbers and serial numbers, and to do all applicable inspections
and corrective actions.
    AD 2011-08-04, Amendment 39-16654 (76 FR 20498, April 13, 2011),
referred to Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) (the aviation
authority for Canada) Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-20, dated May 1,
2009 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been four reports of loose or detached main landing
gear torque link apex pin locking plate and the locking plate
retainer bolt. This condition could result in torque link apex pin
disengagement, heavy vibration during landing, damage to main
landing gear components and subsequent main landing gear collapse.
    Investigation has determined that incorrect stack-up tolerances
of the apex joint or improper installation of the locking plate and
apex nut could result in torque link apex pin disengagement. This
[TCCA] directive mandates [a one-time detailed] inspection of the
torque link apex joint [for correct installation and damage, and
corrective actions if necessary] and replacement of the torque link
apex nut.

    The corrective actions include re-installing parts that are not
correctly installed and replacing damaged parts. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies to inspect only airplanes having certain serial
numbers that are part of the MCAI applicability. Because the affected
part could be rotated onto any of the airplanes listed in the
applicability, this proposed AD would continue to require that the
inspection be done on all airplanes. We have coordinated this with the
TCCA.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 361 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2011-08-04, Amendment 39-16654 (76 FR
20498, April 13, 2011), and retained in this proposed AD that about 5
work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required
actions is $153,425, or $425 per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $153,425, or $425
per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-16654 (76 FR
20498, April 13, 2011) and adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2012-0042; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-154-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 22, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2011-08-04, Amendment 39-16654 (76 FR
20498, April 13, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702)
airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 10003 and subsequent.
    (2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and
Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, S/Ns 15001
and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of loose or detached main
landing gear (MLG) torque link apex pin locking plate and the
locking plate retainer bolt in the torque link apex joint. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct improper assembly and damage
of the MLG torque link apex joint, which could cause heavy vibration
during landing, consequent damage to MLG components, and subsequent
collapse of the MLG.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2011-08-04, Amendment 39-16654 (76 FR
20498, April 13, 2011)

(g) Inspection for Part Number (P/N) and Serial Number (S/N) for Model
CL-600-2C10 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: Within
900 flight hours after May 18, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-
08-04, Amendment 39-16654 (76 FR 20498, April 13, 2011)), inspect
the main landing gear (MLG) shock strut assemblies to determine
whether an MLG shock strut assembly having P/Ns 49000-11 through
49000-22 inclusive and a S/N 0001 through 0284 inclusive is
installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in
lieu of this inspection if the part and serial numbers of the MLG
shock strut assembly can be conclusively determined from that
review.

(h) Inspection of the Torque Link Apex Joint for Model CL-600-2C10
Airplanes

    For any MLG shock strut assembly having P/Ns 49000-11 through
49000-22 inclusive and a S/N 0001 through 0284 inclusive found
installed during the inspection or records check required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 900 flight hours after May 18,
2011, perform a one-time detailed inspection and all applicable
corrective actions on the torque link apex joint, in accordance with
Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670BA-32-019, Revision A, dated September 18, 2008, except
as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.

(i) Replacement or Rework of the Apex Nut for Model CL-600-2C10
Airplanes

    For any MLG shock strut assembly identified during the
inspection or records check required by paragraph (g) of this AD:
Within 4,500 flight hours after May 18, 2011, replace or rework the
apex nut, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-019, Revision
A, dated September 18, 2008.

(j) Parts Installation

    For all airplanes: As of May 18, 2011, no person may install, on
any airplane, a replacement MLG shock strut assembly identified in
paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, unless it has been reworked
in accordance with paragraph B. of Part B of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-019, Revision
A, dated September 18, 2008.
    (1) Part numbers 49000-11 through 49000-22 inclusive, and with a
serial number in the range of S/Ns 0001 through 0284 inclusive (the
serial number can start with ``MA,'' ``MAL,'' or ``MA-'').
    (2) Part numbers 49050-5 through 49050-10 inclusive, and with a
serial number in the range of S/Ns 1001 through 1114 inclusive (the
serial number can start with ``MA,'' ``MAL,'' or ``MA-'').

New Requirements of This AD

(k) Inspection for Part Number and Serial Number for Model CL-600-2D15
and CL-600-2D24 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Within
900 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect the
MLG shock strut assemblies to determine whether an MLG shock strut
assembly having P/Ns 49050-5 through 49050-10 inclusive and a S/N
0001 through 1114 inclusive is installed. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
part and serial numbers of the MLG shock strut assembly can be
conclusively determined from that review.

(l) Inspection of the Torque Link Apex Joint for Model CL-600-2D15 and
CL-600-2D24 Airplanes

    For any MLG shock strut assembly having P/Ns 49050-5 through
49050-10 inclusive and a S/N 0001 through 1114 inclusive found
installed during the inspection or records check required by
paragraph (k) of this AD: Within 900 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, perform a one-time detailed inspection
and all applicable corrective actions on the torque link apex joint,
in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-019, Revision A, dated
September 18, 2008, except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD.
Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(m) Replacement or Rework of the Apex Nut for Model CL-600-2D15 and CL-
600-2D24 Airplanes

    For any MLG shock strut assembly identified during the
inspection or records check required by paragraph (k) of this AD:
Within 900 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace
or rework the apex nut, in accordance with Part B of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-
019, Revision A, dated September 18, 2008.

 (n) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous
Service Information

    Inspections, corrective actions, replacements, and rework
accomplished before the effective date of this AD, in accordance
with Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-019, dated March 16, 2006,
are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
actions specified in this AD.

(o) Inspections Not Required Under Certain Conditions

    The inspections specified in paragraph (h) or (l) of this AD are
not required if the actions specified in paragraph (i) or (m) of
this AD, as applicable, have already been accomplished; or if
Bombardier Repair Engineering Order 670-32-11-0022, dated October
22, 2005, or Goodrich Service Concession Request SCR 0056-05, dated
October 22, 2005; has been incorporated.

(p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516)
794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(q) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(r) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-20, dated
May 1, 2009; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-019, Revision
A, dated September 18, 2008; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 24, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-2619 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P