[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57234-57237]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22274]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93269; File No. SR-C2-2021-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 5.5(c) and Rule 5.6 in Connection With Time-In-Force Instructions
Available for Bulk Messages and To Make a Clarifying Change

October 7, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 24, 2021, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
amend Rule 5.5(c) and Rule 5.6 in connection with Time-in-Force
instructions available for bulk messages and to make a clarifying
change. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.5(c) and Rule 5.6(d) to allow
Users to instruct bulk messages with a Time-in-Force of Immediate-or-
Cancel (``IOC''). Currently, Users may not designate bulk messages as
IOC, which, pursuant to Rule 5.6(d), instructs a limit order to execute
in whole or in part as soon as the System receives it. The System
cancels and does not post to the Book an IOC order (or unexecuted
portion) not executed immediately on the Exchange or another options
exchange. A bulk message is a single electronic message a User submits
with an M Capacity (i.e., for the account of a Market-Maker) to the
Exchange in which the User may enter, modify, or cancel up to an
Exchange-specified number of bids and offers. More, specifically, bulk
message functionality is available to Market-Makers and permits them to
update their electronic quotes in block quantities across series in a
class. Rule 5.5(c)(3)(A)(i) currently provides that a bulk message
submitted through a dedicated logical port (i.e., a ``bulk port'') has
a Time-in-Force of Day. Pursuant to Rule 5.6(d), the term ``Day''
means, for an order so designated, an order or quote that, if not
executed, expires at the RTH market close. All bulk messages have a
Time in Force of DAY, as set forth in Rule 5.5(c).
    The Exchange proposes to allow Market-Makers to designate bulk
messages as IOC by amending the following: Rule 5.3(c)(3)(A)(i) to
provide that a bulk message submitted through a bulk port has a Time-
in-Force of Day or IOC; the definition of IOC in Rule 5.6(d) to provide
that Users may designate bulk messages as IOC; and the definition of
``Day'' in Rule 5.6(d) to remove the language that all bulk messages
have a Time-in-Force of DAY,

as set forth in Rule 5.5(c), and instead provide that Users may
designate bulk messages as Day.
    A Market-Maker's primary purpose is to provide liquidity to the
market, which it may do in various ways, including resting quotes on
the Book as well as submitting quotes to trade against other resting
interest on the Book. In addition to providing liquidity via continuous
quotes in a Market-Maker's appointed classes,\5\ as part of its quoting
obligations, a Market-Maker is also required to maintain active markets
in its appointed classes, update quotations in response to changed
market conditions in its appointed classes and compete with other
Market-Makers in its appointed classes.\6\ As part of a Market-Maker's
efforts to satisfy these obligations, a Market-Maker may update quotes
with the specific purpose of removing interest resting in the Book.
This may provide additional execution opportunities for customers,
thereby encouraging an increase in overall participation in an
appointed class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 5.51(a)(1).
    \6\ See Rule 5.51(a)(3)-(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, if a Market-Maker wishes to execute against interest in
the Book, a Market-Maker will enter a Book Only bulk message or modify
an existing bulk message to attempt to execute against such interest,
followed immediately by a bulk message to cancel the preceding bulk
message (or unexecuted portion) so that no portion of that bulk message
will remain displayed on the Book. Essentially, in order to execute
against interest on the Book, Market-Makers may currently send a
sequence of bulk messages that mimic the result of an IOC instruction--
ultimately the bulk message is cancelled and does not post to the Book
if it is not executed immediately against resting interest. Sending a
bulk message to cancel immediately following the submission of a bulk
message or a bulk message modification to execute against resting
interest creates an extra step for Market-Makers (compared to Trading
Permit Holders (``TPHs'') that may use IOC orders to accomplish this)
using bulk message functionality and requires the System to process
additional messages. As such, the proposed rule change to permit
Market-Makers to designate their bulk messages as IOC would allow them
to attempt more effectively and efficiently to execute against interest
in the Book and would reduce message traffic by eliminating the need
for Market-Makers to send multiple messages to attempt this. The
Exchange notes that Market-Makers may already use bulk messages to
remove liquidity from the Book (if they so elect) using the ``Book
Only'' instruction and, as described above, Market-Makers may already
use bulk messages to remove liquidity without letting nonexecuted size
rest on the Book. The proposed rule change merely streamlines the
manner in which Market-Makers may already utilize bulk messages to
execute against interest on the Book without sending an unexecuted bulk
message (or unexecuted portion) to the Book thereafter. Also, Market-
Makers may already designate their quotes submitted in an order as
IOC.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that a Market-Maker may submit their
quotes electronically in an order or bulk message. The Exchange also
notes that, while Market-Makers may currently instruct their orders,
including quotes submitted as orders, as IOC, the Exchange
understands that Market-Makers predominantly conduct their trading
activity through and design their business models around the use
bulk messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that bulk message functionality is designed to
facilitate Market-Makers quoting on the Exchange in connection with
their responsibility as liquidity providers. For example, the current
requirement that bulk messages have a Time-in-Force of Day is
consistent with general practice of Market-Makers to enter new quotes
at the beginning of each trading day, as well as a Market-Maker's
obligation to update its quotes in response to changed market
conditions in its appointed classes. The provision that allows Market-
Makers to designate their bulk messages as Post Only or Book Only is
intended to provide Market-Makers with flexibility to use these
instructions to permit them to execute against resting interest upon
entry or add liquidity to the Book in connection with their various
obligations in a manner they deem appropriate.\8\ The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change likewise permits Market-Makers to use an
instruction with respect to their bulk messages as an additional tool
to provide liquidity to the market and meet their various obligations
(such as maintaining active markets in an appointed class, updating
quotations in response to changed market conditions in an appointed
class and competing with other Market-Makers in an appointed class) in
a manner they deem appropriate, which may include removing interest in
the Book to subsequently post updated quotes at potentially tighter
spreads and to provide additional execution opportunities at
potentially improved prices. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change enhances a current means by which Market-Makers
use bulk messages to facilitate the provision of liquidity on the
Exchange. That is, Market-Makers using bulk messages with an IOC
instruction, as proposed, may more efficiently execute against resting
interest, thereby increasing execution opportunities for orders resting
on the Book. An increase in transactions on the Exchange may facilitate
tighter spreads and price discovery, and, as a result, encourage
increased participation and additional order flow from other market
participants. The Exchange notes that the submission of bulk messages
to the Exchange is voluntary and that Market-Makers may continue to
elect to use bulk messages designated as Day in the same manner as they
do today, including sending a bulk message immediately followed by a
cancel to attempt to execute against resting interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Release Nos. 85038 (February 1,
2019), 84 FR 2598 (February 7, 2019) (SR-C2-2018-025); and 88814
(May 5, 2020), 85 FR 27779 (May 11, 2020) (SR-C2-2020-005). The
Exchange notes that SR-C2-2018-025 implemented bulk message
functionality to be consistent with the bulk message functionality,
also adopted at that time, by its affiliated options exchange, Cboe
Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options''). The Exchange notes that Cboe
Option's bulk message functionality replaced its prior block quoting
functionality, which likewise allowed a Market Maker to submit a
single message containing bids and offers in multiple series;
however, Cboe Options Rules did not prohibit an IOC designation for
quotes submitted in block quantities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also updates Rule 5.6(a), which currently
provides that, unless otherwise specified in the Rules or the context
indicates otherwise, the Exchange determines which of the following
order types, Order Instructions, and Times-in-Force are available on a
class, system, or trading session basis. The Exchange notes that,
currently, an Order Instruction or Time-in-Force applied to a bulk
message applies to each bid and offer within that bulk message. The
proposed rule change updates Rules 5.6(a) to make this explicit. The
proposed rule change does not alter any current functionality, but
instead adds clarity to the Rule by more accurately reflecting the
current application of such designations to bulk messages.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section

6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
allowing Market-Makers to designate their bulk messages as IOC will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and national market system and benefit investors by permitting
Market-Makers to more effectively and efficiently execute bulk messages
against specific interest on the Book without posting an unexecuted
bulk message (or unexecuted portion) to the Book thereafter. As
described above, Market-Makers already submit bulk messages in a manner
that mimics an IOC instruction; the proposed rule change merely
streamlines this process for Market-Makers by allowing them to use a
Time-in-Force instruction currently available for their orders (which
may also contain a Market-Maker's quotes) on the Exchange today. In
addition to this, Market-Makers may already include Book Only
instructions that permit their bulk messages to remove liquidity from
the Book. The proposed rule change is designed to benefit market
participants by increasing efficiency and reducing additional message
traffic by eliminating the need for Market-Makers to send an additional
bulk message to cancel along with their bulk messages in instances in
which they wish to execute against interest that appears on the Book.
The proposed rule change allows Market-Makers to elect to use their
bulk messages as additional tools to meet their various obligations in
a manner they deem appropriate, consistent with the purpose of bulk
message functionality to facilitate Market-Makers' provision of
liquidity, which may include removing interest in the Book to
subsequently post updated quotes at potentially tighter spreads and to
provide additional execution opportunities at potentially improved
prices. Also, the use of IOC bulk messages for Market-Makers may
ultimately facilitate the provision of additional liquidity on the by
increasing execution opportunities on the Exchange, as an increase in
transactions on the Exchange may facilitate tighter spreads and price
discovery, thereby encouraging increased participation and additional
order flow from other market participants, to the benefit of all
investors. Market-Makers may continue to elect to use bulk messages
designated as Day in the same manner as they do today, including
sending a bulk message immediately followed by a cancel to attempt to
execute against resting interest.
    Additionally, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
change would permit unfair discrimination as bulk message functionality
is principally designed to facilitate the provision of liquidity by
Market-Makers to the Exchange and help Market-Makers satisfy their
obligations. The Exchange believes that Market-Makers play a unique and
critical role in the options market by providing liquid and active
markets and are subject to various quoting obligations (which other
market participants are not), including an obligation to maintain
active markets, to update quotations in response to changed market
conditions and to compete with other Market-Makers in its appointed
classes. Bulk message functionality, including an IOC bulk message,
provides Market-Makers with a means to help them satisfy these
obligations. As noted above, Market-Makers are already able to use Book
Only bulk messages to execute against resting liquidity in multiple
series across a class and to cancel quotes in multiple series across a
class. The proposed rule change simply allows Market-Makers to utilize
their bulk messages in the same manner, just with a single message.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
regarding the manner in which an Order Instruction and Time-in-Force
instruction is applied to bulk messages removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system by amending Rule 5.6(a) to reflect current functionality. The
proposed rule change is merely a clarification in the Rule intended to
more accurately reflect how bulk message functionality currently works,
thereby increasing transparency in the Rule and ultimately benefitting
investors. The proposed clarification does not alter any current
functionality and is simply intended to provide clarity to the Rule.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change in connection with IOC bulk
messages will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because the IOC instruction for bulk messages will be available for all
Market-Makers that choose to submit bulk messages. Use of the IOC
instruction for bulk messages is voluntary, and Market-Makers may
choose to continue to only apply the Day Time-in-Force to bulk messages
and continue to attempt to execute bulk messages against resting
interest using multiple messages as they do today. The proposed rule
change permits Market-Makers to use a Time-in-Force that is already
available to all TPHs, including Market-Makers, to apply to their
orders. While only Market-Makers may submit IOC bulk messages (as only
Market-Makers may currently submit any bulk messages), the Exchange
believes this is appropriate given the various obligations Market-
Makers must satisfy under the Rules and the unique and critical role
Market-Makers play in the options market by providing liquid and active
markets. The Exchange believes providing Market-Makers with flexibility
to use the IOC instruction with respect to bulk messages will provide
Market-Makers with an enhanced tool to provide liquidity to the market
and satisfy their obligations in a manner they deem appropriate, as
they are similarly able to do today by electing the Book Only and Post
Only instructions for their bulk messages.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change in
connection with IOC bulk messages will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act as it relates to quoting functionality available to
Market-Makers on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that market
participants on other exchanges are welcome to become Market-Makers on
the Exchange if they determine that this proposed rule change has made
participation as a Market-Maker on the Exchange more attractive or
favorable.
    The proposed rule change in connection with the application of

Order Instructions and Times-in-Force instructions to bulk messages is
not competitive in nature but is merely a clarification in the Rule,
consistent with existing bulk message functionality and intended to
provide clarity to the Rule by more accurately reflecting the current
bulk message functionality. All Order Instructions and Times-in-Force
instructions will continue to apply to bulk messages in the same manner
as they do today.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(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 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-C2-2021-014 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-C2-2021-014. 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 the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-C2-2021-014, and should be submitted on
or before November 4, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22274 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62130-62131]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24550]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-507-000; Docket No. CP12-508-000]

Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, Cheniere Corpus Christi
Pipeline, LP; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Corpus Christi Lng Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Corpus Christi LNG Project (Project), proposed by Corpus
Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, LP
(collectively Cheniere) in the above-referenced dockets. Cheniere
requests authorization to construct and operate the facilities
necessary to import, export, store, vaporize, and liquefy natural gas
and deliver the resulting product either into existing interstate and
intrastate natural gas pipelines in the Corpus Christi area, or export
liquefied natural gas (LNG) elsewhere. The Project liquefaction
facilities would enable Cheniere to export LNG equivalent to
approximately 2.1 billion standard cubic feet (Bscf) per day of natural
gas, and the vaporization facilities would enable Cheniere to sendout
approximately 400 million standard cubic feet (MMscf) per day of
natural gas into its proposed pipeline system.

    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with the
mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would ensure that impacts
in the Project area would be avoided or minimized and would not be
significant. Construction and operation of the Project would result in
mostly temporary and short-term environmental impacts; however, some
long-term and permanent environmental impacts would occur.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) participated as cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources
potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA
analysis. The U.S. Coast Guard, EPA, and DOT cooperated in the
preparation of this EIS because of their special expertise with respect
to resources potentially affected by the proposal.
    Although the cooperating agencies provide input to the conclusions
and recommendations presented in the final EIS, the agencies will
present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective
Records of Decision or determinations for the Project.
    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following Project facilities:
     Liquefaction facilities, including three liquefaction
trains each capable of liquefying approximately 700 MMscf per day of
natural gas;
     vaporization facilities, including two trains of ambient
air vaporizers and send out pumps each capable of vaporizing sufficient
LNG volume for each to send out approximately 200 MMscf per day of
natural gas;
     LNG storage facilities, including three LNG storage tanks
each capable of storing LNG equivalent to approximately 3.4 Bscf of
natural gas;
     marine terminal with two LNG carrier berths;
     23 miles of 48-inch-diameter pipeline;
     one 41,000 horsepower compressor station and one 12,260
horsepower compressor station; and
     ancillary facilities.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the final EIS to federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the Project area; and parties to
this proceeding. Everyone on our environmental mailing list will
receive a CD version of the final EIS. In addition, the final EIS is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov)
using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies are available for
distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Questions?

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP12-
507 and CP12-508). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FercOnline
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: October 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24550 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Testimony of Jack E. Housenger, Associate Director, Antimicrobials Division Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Before the Consumer Product Safety Commission Hearing on Chromated Copper Arsenate ( CCA) Treated Wood March 17, 2003 Introduction First of all, I want to thank Chairman Hal Stratton for inviting EPA to provide comments today at the Consumer Product Safety Commission's ( CPSC) hearing on chromated copper arsenate ( CCA) treated wood. We have invested a lot of effort into the scientific review of CCA and we have worked cooperatively with the Commission on this effort. We appreciate your continued commitment to work with the Agency on this important issue.

My comments today will focus on three areas: first, I will provide the regulatory context of EPA's pesticide program and how it relates to CCA; second, I will discuss the phase out of CCA in residential settings; and third, I will provide you with the status of our ongoing work at the Agency and in cooperation with the Commission.

Regulatory Context EPA regulates the sale, distribution and use of all pesticides in the United States, including those chemicals that are used in agricultural crop production, those that are used around the home to control unwanted pests, repellents that protect us from biting insects, and antimicrobial products that are used to control the growth of microorganisms in our environment. Specifically,

the Antimicrobials Division within EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is responsible for the registration and reregistration activities of all antimicrobial pesticides, including those products that are used as wood preservatives. CCA falls into this category of antimicrobial pesticides because it is used as a wood preservative to control wood destroying microorganisms. EPA's legal authority to regulate pesticides is provided by two statutes: the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA),

both of which were amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. It is under the first statute, FIFRA, that we are given the authority to regulate wood preservatives like CCA. The primary enforcement tool used to regulate pesticide sale, distribution and use is the EPAapproved label. Labels are legally required to accompany every pesticide product sold or distributed in the United States and instruct the user about such things as where a pesticide product may be used, how to safely apply the product, how much product should be used, as well as warnings and safety precautions to protect health and the environment. In other words, the label is the law.

While FIFRA regulates the sale, distribution and use of the pesticide CCA, qualifying wood treated with CCA is exempt from regulation under FIFRA ( 40CFR152.25( a)). However,

the potential risks of exposure from using treated wood is considered in our risk evaluation for the pesticide. The Agency's regulatory approach focuses on ensuring the pesticide can be used safely and that there will be no adverse effects to people or the environment provided the pesticide was used according to label directions.

CCA, which was first registered in the 1940s, is being extensively reviewed by the Agency under a rigorous program to evaluate all older pesticides that were registered for use prior to November 1984. This program, called reregistration, ensures that the older pesticides meet today's higher scientific and regulatory standards for protecting human health and the environment. Because the information and science about pesticides, and therefore our understanding of the potential risks posed by pesticides, is constantly evolving, this program is critical to ensure the decisions made to protect human health and the environment are based on today's more stringent standards and modern scientific assessment methodologies. The reregistration process includes a multi phase, public participation process where risk assessment documents are shared in a open and transparent manner to afford opportunities for meaningful input from all interested stakeholders.

EPA's Regulatory Decision on CCA EPA is reviewing CCA under two different tracks which will result in the most rigorous risk assessment ever done on a wood preservative pesticide. One risk assessment is specifically considering children's exposure at residential sites, playground settings and public parks. The completion of this investigation of potential risks to children from exposure to CCA treated wood is a priority for the Agency. The other risk assessment, being conducted under the Agency's reregistration program, focuses on the uses that are not subject to the phase out agreement. We expect this risk assessment to be available for public comment this Spring.

EPA believes that all regulatory decisions on pesticides must be supported by the strongest scientific methods and the most scientifically sound information available to ensure we have a high level of confidence in those decisions. To that end, we have involved a number of offices at the Agency to help with the review of CCA as well as soliciting peer review from an independent FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP) to guarantee our risk assessment techniques are grounded in sound science. The SAP met in October 2001 and recommended that the Agency conduct a probabilistic risk assessment on CCA which provides for a much more robust analysis than does a deterministic risk assessment. Probabilistic assessments have significantly strengthened the scientific credibility of our regulatory decisions. We believe that the probabilistic assessment that we are conducting will significantly reduce uncertainties associated with our risk estimates. In addition, the SAP recommended that we seek better quality data on potential children's exposure to CCA in residential and playground settings. We have been taking steps to implement their recommendations about our risk assessment and, in 2001, the Agency began discussions with the Commission about ways to enhance the data upon which our exposure assessment would be based. The Agency is also implementing the SAP recommendations on exposure data which I will discuss a little later.

Transition to New Generation of Wood Treatment Products In early 2002, the CCA manufacturers, or registrants as we call them, approached EPA about their individual decisions to voluntarily phase out virtually all CCA residential uses,

including CCA intended for use in treating wood destined for decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers, gazebos, residential fencing, patios, walkways and play structures. EPA accepted the registrants' actions to phase out the residential uses of CCA which means that CCA will not be used on residential type wood after December 30, 2003. The Agency applauded the registrants'

actions which will ensure that future exposures to arsenic are minimized in residential settings.

Further, the voluntary actions will substantially reduce the time it otherwise could have taken for the review of CCA to go through the traditional regulatory process. In fact, many wood treatment facilities are already well along with their transitions to products other than those containing CCA for wood treatment purposes.

According to the regulations governing pesticide registration, the Agency is required to issue a final cancellation order to formally remove from CCA pesticide labels those residential uses being voluntarily terminated. [ This cancellation order was signed today and is expected to be announced in the Federal Register shortly.] The final cancellation order makes it illegal to use CCA product bearing the new restrictive labels to treat wood intended for most residential uses included in the registrants' requests after December 30, 2003. Wood products that have been legally treated with CCA will be allowed to move through channels of trade, but we believe that will occur for a relatively short period of time.

Status of Ongoing Review of CCA Even though the Agency reached an agreement with industry to phase out the uses of CCA for treating wood used in residential settings, we are continuing the children's risk assessment process as well as our review of those remaining uses that are not part of the voluntary cancellation/ use termination. It is important to note also that EPA has not concluded that CCA treated wood poses unreasonable risks to the public for existing structures made with CCA treated wood. We are continuing to evaluate potential risks from structures already in place and will continue to evaluate those remaining uses that are not included in the voluntary actions.

We are moving forward with our probabilistic assessment of potential cancer risks to children from exposure to CCA in residential settings and we are enhancing the information upon which we will base our decision about such risks. In particular, three studies are currently underway that will greatly benefit our understanding of the levels of exposure that may be possible from treated wood. The first study, a " surface residue bioavailability study," will examine the surface residues of arsenic on wood and estimate how much of that residue can be absorbed by the body from the wood surface. We expect final results from this study by the end of April. The second study is a " soil residue bioavailability study," which will estimate the potential arsenic dose absorbed from soil contact and incidental ingestion through the mouth by children. Those results are expected this month. The third study of importance is a " hand wipe study" which will estimate the potential exposure to arsenic when the hand comes in contact with treated wood and correlates this physical activity with potential exposure to arsenic. Results from an interim pilot of this study have been received, but the complete study results are not expected until late May. These data will be fully evaluated in developing a draft children's risk assessment which we intend to take to our SAP for comment in December. We expect to release the draft children's risk assessment publicly several weeks prior to the SAP meeting. We intend to fully consider any recommendations made by the SAP in finalizing the risk assessment. An additional study that we are collaborating on with the Commission and our Office of Research and Development ( ORD) is to develop data on the effectiveness of sealants in preventing exposure to residues of CCA on treated wood.

EPA expects to evaluate those uses that are not part of the voluntary cancellation through the standard 6 phase public participation process established for pesticide reregistration. This public process ensures active stakeholder participation throughout and the Agency intends to include the Commission in our evaluation process.

The Agency highly values its collaboration with the Commission on the assessment of CCA. As I mentioned earlier, we began collaborating with the Commission in 2001 and have maintained an open and constructive dialogue regarding the review of CCA since that time. The Commission has provided valuable assistance in reviewing the study design protocols that will generate new exposure information expected within the next several months. We were offered an opportunity to peer review the risk assessment prepared by the Commission and will consider it along with all the other information we have on CCA as we move forward in completing our risk assessment. We fully intend to consult with the Commission on our CCA risk assessments,

including peer review prior to presenting the children's risk assessment to our SAP.

Again, on behalf of EPA, I appreciate this opportunity to speak before you about our review process for CCA. Given the Agency's rigorous scientific and regulatory process, as well as the actions to phase out CCA for virtually all residential uses, we look forward to assisting the Commission in any continuing work on CCA treated wood. I will be pleased to answer any questions on EPA activities.

Thank you again for inviting me here today.


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	 	April 5, 2012

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT:	NSPS Low Pressure Well Threshold: Summary and Impacts Estimates

In response to comments received on the proposed rule related to the technical infeasibility of gas capture from low pressure wells, the EPA evaluated alternative options and developed a pressure threshold in the final rule. This threshold is based on a simple equation operators can use to determine if the flowback pressure of a well is sufficient to overcome the pressure of the flow line, thus making gas capture through Reduced Emission Completions possible.  If the flowback gas of a well falls below the pressure threshold, combustion is allowed as an alternative.

Full details of the analysis to develop the pressure threshold and nation-wide impacts are available in the Determination of Minimum Flowback Pressure Memorandum. This document provides additional details on the impacts related to CBM wells

Further Details on the Low Pressure Threshold Impacts Analysis:

The data used in this analysis is 2008 data from HPDI, which contains detailed production and other related data on natural gas wells in the United States. Using this data set and other information to estimate the required equation input parameters, EPA applied the equation to each hydraulically fractured gas well completion in the data set to determine which completion would likely fall above or below the threshold. Based on this analysis, the key results are as follows:    * 10% of hydraulically fractured wells nation-wide would fall below the pressure threshold in the rule and thus allowed to combust as an alternative to REC.    * CBM represents about 85% of the total wells that are estimated to fall below the threshold; EPA's estimates show that the majority of CBM well completions in the dataset (almost 90%) would fall below the threshold. CBM wells have been recognized by many commenters as having low VOC and should not be included in the rule. This analysis shows that even in the absence of a VOC threshold, the majority of these wells are likely not subject to the REC requirements.

Background: Overview of Final Rule Pressure Threshold Equation:

The final NSPS OOOO rule includes Equation 1 (below) for operators to determine if a well meets the threshold. Operators will input the reservoir pressure and vertical well depth (both of which are available at the time the well is perforated) for each gas well that is a hydraulic fracturing affected facility into Equation 1. This result of this equation will determine a calculated pressure of the gas immediately before it would be routed to the flow line, resulting in one of two cases: (1) the calculated line pressure is greater than the actual line pressure to be used by the operator, thus the gas capture using REC in combination with combustion is required, or (2) the calculated line pressure is less than or equal to the actual flow line pressure, combustion is allowed as an alternative.

                         PL=0.445xPR-0.038xL+67.578 (Eq. 1)


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57850-57852]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20442]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0876; Project Identifier AD-2021-00999-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

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 The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that during
regular pre-flight checks multiple door assist handles failed by
pulling loose from their lower attachment point in the doorway support
bracket. This proposed AD would require, depending on airplane
configuration, doing an inspection of the forward and aft door assist
handles for correct installation, installing a new retainer above the
lower keyway of the support bracket assembly at certain locations,
installing a placard on certain support bracket assemblies,
reidentifying the support bracket assembly, and replacing the upper
spring clip. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 7,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
0876.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0876; 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 NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Lucero, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-
3569; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0876; Project Identifier
AD-2021-00999-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Brandon Lucero, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental
Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has received a report indicating that during regular pre-
flight checks multiple door assist handles failed by pulling loose from
their lower attachment point in the doorway support bracket. Boeing
determined that a lower maximum allowable door assist handle flex
value, coupled with an out-of-tolerance door assist handle, contributed
to this failure. Loose door assist handles create a safety issue during
normal and emergency use of the door if the door assist handles detach
from the door. This condition, if not addressed, could result in injury
to passengers, crew, or maintenance personnel due to falling out of the
airplane when opening the door, and could limit exit from the airplane
during a time-limited emergency evacuation.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250253-
00 RB, Issue 001, dated June 18, 2021. This service information
specifies procedures for, depending on airplane configuration, doing a
detailed inspection of the forward and aft door assist handles for
correct installation, installing a new retainer above the lower keyway
of the support bracket assembly at the left- and right-side passenger
entry doors 1, 2, 3, and 4 located at the forward and aft door assist
handle, installing a placard on the forward and aft support bracket

assembly, and replacing the upper spring clip.
    The FAA reviewed Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250254-
00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 22, 2021. This service information
specifies procedures for installing a new retainer above the lower
keyway of the support bracket assembly at the left- and right-side
passenger entry doors 1, 2, 3, and 4 located at the forward and aft
door assist handle, and reidentifying the support bracket assembly with
a new part number.
    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 ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described and except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0876.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 123 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Cost per          Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost         Parts cost        product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and installation (for    20 work-hours x $85              $160          $1,860  $212,040 (114
 Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes).   per hour = $1,700.                                     airplanes).
Installation and reidentification   28 work-hours x $85               160           2,540  $22,860 (9
 (for Model 787-10 airplanes).       per hour = $2,380.                                     airplanes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed
inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...................................  1 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $160            $245
                                                 $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected operators.

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 above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2022-0876; Project Identifier AD-
2021-00999-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 7, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and
787-10 airplanes,

certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Requirements
Bulletin B787-81205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue 001, dated June 18, 2021;
and Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250254-00 RB, Issue
001, dated February 22, 2021; as applicable.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that during regular pre-flight
checks multiple door assist handles failed by pulling loose from
their lower attachment point in the doorway support bracket. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address loose or detached door assist handles,
which could result in injury to passengers, crew, or maintenance
personnel due to falling out of the airplane when opening the door,
and could limit exit from the airplane during a time-limited
emergency evacuation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue 001, dated
June 18, 2021; or Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250254-
00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 22, 2021; as applicable; do all
applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-
81205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue 001, dated June 18, 2021; or Boeing
Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250254-00 RB, Issue 001, dated
February 22, 2021; as applicable.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g):  Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-
81205-SB250253-00, Issue 001, dated June 18, 2021, which is referred
to in Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue
001, dated June 18, 2021.

    Note 2 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-
81205-SB250254-00, Issue 001, dated February 22, 2021, which is
referred to in Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250254-00
RB, Issue 001, dated February 22, 2021.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB250253-00 RB, Issue 001, dated June 18, 2021, use the phrase ``the
Issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250253-00 RB,''
this AD requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where the Compliance Time column of the table in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB250254-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 22, 2021, use the phrase
``the Issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250254-00
RB,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (3) Where the tables in the ``Accomplishment Instructions'' of
Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue 001,
dated June 18, 2021, specify a certain Safran service bulletin (SB),
replace the text ``SAFRAN SB C355101-25-02,'' with ``SAFRAN Service
Bulletin C355101-25-02, Revision 2, dated February 24, 2021.''

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 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 responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Brandon Lucero,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on July 8, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-20442 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


:: Any mounting that is configured differently than described above to secure the lens and that is design/process dependent such that it requires a different lens beveling process or mounting technique.

Manufacturers shall also conduct the test if it incorporates frames with different lens retention systems into the product offering.

This type testing shall be performed when any substantive change in production occurs that could affect the ability of the device to pass the tests as described in Sections 9.11 and 9.12.

<IP_ADDRESS> Haze -- Plastic Only. Plastic lenses of all types shall exhibit not more than 6 percent haze when tested in accordance with the requirements of Federal Test Methods Number 406 (see Appendix Al).

<IP_ADDRESS> Flammability -- Plastic Only. Where plastic materials are used in lenses, such materials shall be noncombustible or slow-burning. Cellulose nitrate, or materials having flammability characteristics approximating those of cellulose nitrate, shall not be used. Such plastic lenses shall be exposed to a test to determine the flame-propagation rate. The specimen shall be ignited by holding one end of the specimen horizontally at the top of a luminous (3/4)--inch Bunsen burner flame in a draft-free room. The rate of propagation determined by a stop watch shall be 24 seconds per inch or less. A faster rate of propagation shall be cause for rejection.

No similar found.
6:3.4.6 Ultraviolet, Luminous, and Infrared Transmittance -- Plastic and Glass. The ultraviolet, luminous (total visible) and infrared transmittance of lenses of all types shall be determined by any standard method recognized as suitable by the National Bureau of Standards. The following methods are suggested:

No similar found.
<IP_ADDRESS>.1 Ultraviolet Transmittance  --
Plastic and Glass. The source of radiant energy for determining the ultraviolet spectral transmittance shall be a quartz mercury arc or other source emitting an intense and preferably discontinuous spectrum. The intense emission lines of the quartz mercury arc at 313 millimicrons, 334 tnillimicrons, 365 millimicrons, and 405 millimicrons are conveniently distributed and well adapted for making these measurements. If other sources are used, the wave lengths closest to the above values of the mercury arc may be used.

No similar found.
<IP_ADDRESS>.2 Luminous Transmittance  --
Plastic and Glass. The standard source of radiant energy used in the measurement of the luminous transmittance of filter lenses shall be a projection type lamp No. T-8 (or other high-powered gas-filled tungsten-filament incandescent lamp) operated at the color temperature (2854 K) corresponding to Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) Source A. The luminous transmittance shall be determined by one of the following means:
(1) Photometrically by an observer having normal color vision, as determined by recognized color vision chart tests such as those employing pseudoisochromatic plates.
(2) With a physical photometer consisting of a therrnopile (or other radiometer) and a luminosity solution having a spectral
transmittance curve which coincides closely with the luminous-efficiency curve of the average eye.
(3) By measuring the spectral transmittance and calculating the luminous transmittance through the use of published data on the spectral radiant energy of CIE Source A and the relative luminous efficiency of the average eye.
J.8 Tinted Lenses and Windows
Lenses having low luminous transmittance should not be worn indoors, except when needed for protection from optical radiation. Care should be exercised in conjunction with wearing such lenses for driving vehicles with tinted windshields or for night driving. Some polarized lenses may present viewing problems when reading liquid crystal displays. Some tinted lenses may absorb certain wavelengths of visual displays or signs, rendering them unreadable.

2010 luminous transmittance focuses on the hazards of polarized lenses; 1968 focuses on test requirements.
<IP_ADDRESS>.3 Infrared Transmittance --  Plastic and Glass. The same standard source of radiant energy used in determining the transmittance of luminous radiation shall be used also in the measurement of the transmittance of the total infrared radiation. One of the following methods shall be used for determining the total infrared transmittance:

By observing the infrared spectral energy distribution curves of a gas-filled lamp with and without the lens placed before the entrance slit of the spectrometer, and integrating the area under each of the two curves between the spectral limits of 700 millimicrons and 4,000 millimicroris.

(2) By observing the integrated transrnittance with a physical radiometer (for example, a thermopile) covered with a deep red filter (such as Corning 2404) which has a high and uniform transmittance through the infrared spectrum and transmits less than 0.5percent of the luminous radiation.

No similar found.
6.4 Maintenance and Disinfection of Eye Protectors
6.4.1 Maintenance
64.1.l It is essential that the lenses of eye protectors be kept clean. Continuous vision through dirty lenses can cause eye fatigue and become a contributory factor to accidents. Daily cleaning of eye protectors is recommended.
10. Instructions, Use and Maintenance
10.1 General
Eye and face protection shall be required where there is a reasonable probability of injury that can be prevented by such equipment. In such cases employers and educational authorities shall make conveniently available a protector for the work environment, per applicable federal and state regulations.
Employees and students shall use such protectors.

Annex I contains a Selection Chart, which will be helpful in deciding types of protectors that are available, their capabilities and limitations. It should be recognized that dusty or chemical environments or both might represent an additional hazard to contact lens wearers. Wearers of contact lenses shall be required to wear appropriate eye and face protectors in a hazardous environment.
2010 has maintenance requirements, no disinfection found.
<IP_ADDRESS> Pitted or scratched lenses reduce vision and seriously reduce protection. They shall be replaced immediately.

No similar found.
<IP_ADDRESS> Replace headbands. Slack, worn out, sweat-soaked, knotted, or twisted headbands do not hold the eye protector in proper position. Visual inspection can determine when the elasticity is reduced to a point beyond proper function.

No similar found.
<IP_ADDRESS> To prolong the life of eye protectors, they shall be placed in suitable cases or containers between periods of use

No similar found.
6.4.2 Issue and Use. Protectors are a personal item and should be for the individual and exclusive use of the person to whom they are issued. If circumstances require reissue, the protectors shall be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected as hereinafter described.

No similar found.
6.4.3 Disinfection
<IP_ADDRESS> General. When a person is assigned protective equipment, It is recommended that this equipment be cleaned and disinfected regularly, without sharing by another person unless disinfected as herein specified.

No similar found.
<IP_ADDRESS> Procedure. Thoroughly clean all surfaces with soap or suitable detergent, and warm water. Carefully rinse all traces of soap or detergent. Completely immerse the protector for 10 minutes in a solution of modified phenol. hypochiorite, or quaternary ammonium compounds, in a strength specified by the manufacturer, at a room temperature of 68° F. Remove protector from solution and suspend in a clean place for air drying at room temperature, or with heated air. Do not rinse because this will remove the residual effect.

Ultraviolet disinfecting equipment may be utilized in conjunction with the washing procedure above, when such equipment can be demonstrated to provide comparable disinfection.

Protectors showing need for extensive cleansing should be disassembled to the extent possible without tools, prior to the washing and disinfection procedure. Replace defective parts with new ones.

No similar found.

10.3 Inspections
Employees and students shall make a visual inspection of their protector prior to each use. Protectors which exhibit broken parts, distortion, or excessive scratches on the lens, are unsuitable for use and shall not be worn. Eye and face protectors that have been subject to an impact shall not be used and shall be discarded and replaced.

10.4 Maintenance
Protectors shall be maintained in a usable condition in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. When one protector is being used by more than
one person, it is recommended that it be cleaned and disinfected prior to use by another person.

10.6 Training
Employers and educational authorities shall train employees and students in the proper use, application ,inspection, maintenance, storage, fitting and limitations of eye and face protectors.

<IP_ADDRESS> Storage. The dry parts or items should be placed in clean, dust-proof containers to protect them.
10.5 Care
Reasonable care shall be taken during the use and storage of protectors so that they are not subject to unnecessary abuse.
2010 uses storage as a part of equipment care, not independently as 1968 does.


Supporting Statement

for

Barge Fleeting Facility Records

OMB No.:  1625-0023

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  Instruction

A.  Justification

1)  Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

The barge fleeting facility regulations require the person in charge of
a facility to keep records of the twice daily inspections of the barge
moorings and the movements of barges and hazardous cargo in and out of
the facility.  Barge fleeting facilities are storage facilities made up
of empty and loaded barges, temporarily moored together and located
outside the river channel.  The regulations in 33 CFR 165.803 were
issued under the authority of the Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.).

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Protection

Prevention

Coast Guard

Safety

Protection of the Natural Resources

Prevention Policy and Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Reduce the number of collisions, allisions, and groundings

Reduce the amount of oil discharged into the marine environment

Reduce the amount of chemicals entering the environment

2)  Purpose of the information collection.

The recordkeeping requirements were written to establish procedures that
would help prevent barges from breaking away from a fleeting facility
and drifting downstream out of control in a very congested area of the
Lower Mississippi River.  The records are required only for barge
fleeting facilities located between New Orleans, LA, and Baton Rouge,
LA, to assure compliance with the rules and to provide documentary
evidence should enforcement action be necessary.

3)  Consideration of the use of improved technology.

The information required may be in any format (i.e., written or
electronic).  We estimate that 100% of the recordkeeping requirements
can be done electronically.  At this time, we estimate that 50% of
recordkeeping is done electronically.

4)  Efforts to identify duplication.

The Coast Guard monitors State and local regulatory activity in this
field.  To date no equivalent State and local programs have been
identified that require equivalent information, and no other Federal
agencies have similar or equivalent regulatory requirements.

5)  Methods used to minimize the burden to small businesses if involved.

This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses
or other small entities.

6)  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were conducted
less frequently.

If this information collection were done less frequently, to ensure
waterway safety the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) may have to
visit and inspect each fleeting facility more frequently to verify
compliance, resulting in greater burden to both the respondents and the
Federal Government.

7)  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8)  Consultation.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9)  Provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10)  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.

11)  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12)  Estimates of reporting and recordkeeping hour and cost burdens of
the collection of information.

The estimated annual number of respondents is 47.

The estimated annual number of responses is 34,310.

The estimated annual hour burden is 11,076 hours.

The estimated annual cost burden is $631,332.

The burden to respondents is provided in Appendix A.  There are two
components to this collection.  One is mooring inspection records; the
other is barge movement records.  We assume that each barge fleeting
facility will make 2 responses per day for the required records.  We
estimate that a the person in charge of a facility will take about 0.33
minutes (0.0055 hours) per mooring inspection record and 1 minute
(0.0167 hours) per barge movement record.  Additionally, we assume that
each barge fleeting facility has 38 barge movements per day.  The
position of a person in charge is analogous to a WG-12.  The wage rate
used is in accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST
7310.1(series) for “Out-Government” personnel.

13)  Total of annualized capital and start-up costs.

There are no capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this
information collection.

14)  Estimates of annualized Federal Government costs.

The estimated annual Federal Government cost is $1,056 (see Appendix B).
 Coast Guard personnel review barge fleeting facility records during
periodic inspections and post-casualty investigations.  We estimate that
it will take 15 minutes (0.25 hours) by a Petty Officer (E-4) to review
barge fleeting facility records, and that each facility’s records are
examined 2 times per year.  The wage rate shown is in accordance with
the current edition of COMDTINST 7310.1(series) for “In-Government”
personnel.

15)  Explain the reasons for the change in burden.

The change in the burden is an ADJUSTMENT due to a change (i.e.,
decrease) in the estimated annual number of respondents and number of
responses.  Based on information from the local Coast Guard unit, we
revised our estimate of the number of barge fleeting facilities and the
number of daily barge movements.  The facility population was changed
from 66 to 47, and the number of barge movements from 125 to 38 per day.
 There is no proposed change to the recordkeeping requirements of this
collection.  The recordkeeping requirements, and the methodology for
calculating burden, remain unchanged.

16)  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17)  Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.

The Coast Guard will display the expiration date for OMB approval of
this information collection.

18)  Exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

  see 165.803(h)(3)(i) Fleeting facility: Records.

  The barge capacity of a fleeting facility may vary greatly.
Historically, the range of fleeting facility barge capacities is 2 to
300, with the average size of 75.  As not all barges arrive/depart in a
given day, we assume 50% daily barge movements per facility for a figure
of 38 daily movements.

OMB 2115-0613		9/3/99

1625-0023

 PAGE   8

  PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES  3


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44320-44322]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18785]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83941; File No. SR-BOX-2018-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Reflect in the Exchange's Governing Documents and the Exchange's
Rulebook, Changes to the Exchange's Name

August 24, 2018.
    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 August 15, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``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 self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule 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 reflect in the Exchange's governing
documents and the Exchange's rulebook, changes to the Exchange's name.
The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal
office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and
also on the Exchange's internet website at http://boxoptions.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 this filing is to reflect in the Exchange's
governing documents and the Exchange's rulebook, changes to the
Exchange's name. On July 19, 2018, the BOX Options Exchange LLC Board
of Directors approved that the name of BOX Options Exchange LLC be
changed to ``BOX Exchange LLC'' and that each officer of the Company
be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to undertake any actions
required or advisable to carry out the name change, including with
respect to the SEC and any governmental or third parties. The Exchange
intends for these changes to be effective upon filing.
    As proposed, references to the Exchange's name will be deleted and
revised to state the new name, as described more fully below. No other
substantive changes are being proposed in this filing. The Exchange
represents that these changes are concerned solely with the
administration of the Exchange and do not affect the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of any rules of the Exchange or the
rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members or their
associated persons in any way. Accordingly, this filing is being
submitted under Rule 19b-4(f)(3). In lieu of providing a copy of the

marked name changes, the Exchange represents that it will make the
necessary non-substantive revisions described below to the Exchange's
corporate governance documents and rulebook, and post updated versions
of each on the Exchange's website pursuant to Rule 19b-4(m)(2).
The Exchange's Name Change
    In connection with the name change of the Exchange, the Exchange is
proposing to amend the Exchange's operative documents. Therefore, the
Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Certificate of Amendment
[sic] (the ``Exchange Certificate''), the Exchange's Limited Liability
Company Agreement (the ``Exchange LLC Agreement''), the Exchange's
Bylaws and the Exchange's Rules (collectively ``operative documents'')
in connection with the name change of the Exchange. Within these
documents the Exchange proposes to delete all references to BOX Options
Exchange LLC and replace it with ``BOX Exchange LLC.''
    In connection with the name change, the Exchange is also proposing
to make non-substantive conforming changes to the BOX Holdings LLC
Agreement and BOX Market LLC Agreement. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to delete all references to BOX Options Exchange LLC and
replace it with ``BOX Exchange LLC'' in these documents.
Other Changes to the Exchange LLC Agreement
    Lastly, the Exchange is also proposing to make other administrative
changes in the Exchange LLC Agreement:

--Amend the preamble of the LLC Agreement and remove references to the
Members of the Exchange. All Members are already detailed in Schedule 1
of the Exchange LLC Agreement.
--Amend the definition of ``Member'' in Article 1 to conform to the
changes made in the preamble.
--Amend the definition of ``MXUS2'' to conform to the changes made in
the preamble.
--Amend Section 18.3 (Notices) to update the notification requirements
for Members.
--Amend Schedule 1 of the LLC Agreement to conform changes to the Unit
Holders and applicable Economic Units, Economic Percentage Interest,
Voting Units and Voting Percentage Interest already in place.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67273 (June 27,
2012), 77 FR 39547 (July 3, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-008), 74267 (February
12, 2015), 80 FR 8913 (February 19, 2015) (SR-BOX-2015-009), 74477
(March 11, 2015), 80 FR 13932 (March 17, 2015) (SR-BOX-2015-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(1) \5\ in that it enables the Exchange to be so organized
as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the
Exchange Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its exchange
members and persons associate with its exchange members, with the
provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder,
and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed change is a non-substantive change and
does not impact the governance, ownership or operations of the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that by ensuring that the Exchanges
operative documents accurately reflect the new legal names, the
proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or market
participant confusion.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the changes to the Exchange LLC
Agreement would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest because the change would
eliminate duplicate references to the Members and make conforming
changes to the ownership details that are already in place, thereby
reducing potential confusion. Market participants and investors would
not be harmed and in fact could benefit from the increased clarity and
transparency in the Exchange LLC Agreement, ensuring that market
participants could more easily understand the Exchange LLC Agreement.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned
solely with updating the Exchange's governance and operative documents
to reflect the abovementioned name changes.

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

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

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

    This proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph (A) of
section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3)
thereunder in that the proposed rule changes is concerned solely with
the administration of the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2018-25 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-BOX-2018-25. 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, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. 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-BOX-2018-25 and should be
submitted on or before September 20, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18785 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13683]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the bi-annual meeting of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Aeronautical Charting Forum (ACF) to
discuss informational content and design of aeronautical charts and
related products, as well as instrument flight procedures development
policy and design criteria.

DATES: The ACF is separated into two distinct groups. The Instrument
Procedures Group (IPG) will meet April 24, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5
p.m. The Charting Group will meet April 25 and 26, 2012 from 8:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be hosted by Innovative Solutions
International, a Pragmatics, Inc. Company at 1761 Business Center
Drive, Reston, VA 20190.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information relating to the
Instrument Procedures Group, contact Thomas E. Schneider, FAA, Flight
Procedures Standards Branch, AFS-420, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., P.O.
Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(405) 954-2528.
    For information relating to the Charting Group, contact Valerie S.
Watson, FAA, National Aeronautical Navigation Products (AeroNav
Products), Quality Assurance & Regulatory Support, AJV-3B, 1305 East-
West Highway, SSMC4, Station 4640, Silver Spring, MD 20910; telephone:
(301) 427-5155, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The public must make arrangements by April 6, 2012, to present oral
statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements
and/or new agenda items to the committee by providing a copy to the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section not later
than April 6, 2012, Public statements will only be considered if time
permits.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28, 2012.
Valerie S. Watson,
Co-Chair, Aeronautical Charting Forum.
[FR Doc. 2012-5293 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M