[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6165-6166]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02099]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0750; FRL-10004-41]

Pesticide Registration Review; Proposed Interim Decisions for
Several Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed
interim registration review decisions and opens a 60-day public comment
period on the proposed interim decisions for the following pesticides:
2,4-DP-p, aliphatic alcohols, alkylbenzene sulfonates, Bacillus
pumilus, bromacil, dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), fatty acid monoesters,
MCPA, methyl bromide, pyroxsulam, tefluthrin, and thiencarbazone
methyl.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest
provided in the Table in Unit IV, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information,
contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the Table in Unit IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7106; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the Table in Unit IV.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed proposed interim decisions for all pesticides
listed in the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring
that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and
other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the
environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV. pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the
pesticides shown in the following Table and opens a 60-day public
comment period on the proposed interim registration review decisions.
This notice also announces the availability of EPA's preliminary
workplan and human health and/or ecological risk assessments for
pyroxsulam and thiencarbazone methyl.

                                        Table--Proposed Interim Decisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager and
 Registration review case name and No.                Docket ID No.                     contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-DP-p, Case No. 0294...............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0726                       Ana Pinto<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Aliphatic alcohols, C6-C16, Case No.    EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0261                       Susanne Cerrelli,
 4004<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (ABS), Case     EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0097                       Erin Dandridge,
 No. 4006<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Bacillus pumilus, Case No. 6015.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0857                       Susanne Cerrelli,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Bromacil, Case No. 0041...............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0445                       Lauren Bailey,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0374.
Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS), Case No.     EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0488                       Katherine St. Clair,
 7454<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Fatty Acid Monoesters, Case No. 6016..  EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0353                       Bibiana Oe,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8162.
MCPA, Case No. 0017...................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0180                       Steven R. Peterson,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Methyl Bromide, Case No. 0335.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0269                       Tiffany Green,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-0314.
Pyroxsulam, Case No. 7275.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0035                       Srijana Shrestha,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Tefluthrin, Case No. 7409.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0501                       Carolyn Smith,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8325.
Thiencarbazone-methyl, Case No. 7276..  EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0481                       Eric Fox<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier
documents related to the registration review case. For example, the
review opened with a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final
Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the
Preliminary Work Plan.
    The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for
conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of
the pesticides included in the tables in Unit IV, as well as the
Agency's subsequent risk findings and consideration of possible risk
mitigation measures. These proposed interim registration review
decisions are supported by the rationales included in those documents.
Following public comment, the Agency will issue interim or final
registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in Unit IV.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim
registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to
provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating
any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision. All comments
should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES and must be received
by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part
of the docket for the pesticides included in the Tables in Unit IV.
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked
``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and may provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The interim registration review decision will explain the
effect that any comments had on the interim decision and provide the
Agency's response to significant comments.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 27, 2020.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-02099 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 58188]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23656]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87401; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Exchange's Equities and Options Fee Schedules
Related to Co-Location Services To Offer Access to a Network Providing
Connection to the Three Equities and Options Feeds

October 24, 2019.
    On August 23, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish a network providing connection to
three equities and options feeds \3\ and amend the Exchange's fee
schedules relating to co-location services to offer access to the
network. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on September 10, 2019.\4\ One comment on the proposed
rule change has been received.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Securities Industry Automation Corporation disseminates
information concerning: (1) Last-sale price information in Tape A
and Tape B-listed securities pursuant to the CTA Plan, (2) quotation
information in Tape A and B-listed securities pursuant to the CQ
Plan, and (3) quotation and last-sale price information in exchange
options trading pursuant to the OPRA Plan. See Notice, infra note 4,
at footnote 8.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86867 (September 4,
2019), 84 FR 47563.
    \5\ See Letter from John M. Yetter, Vice President and Senior
Deputy General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated October 24, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is October 25, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comments
received. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\7\ designates December 9, 2019, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23656 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 149)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46873-46877]
[DOCID:fr04au10-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0670; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-339-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318-111 and A318-112
Airplanes and Model A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for the products listed above.
This action revises the earlier NPRM by expanding the scope. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Damage to the lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack, typically
elongated holes, migrated bushes [bushings], and/or missing bolts
have been reported in-service. In addition damage to the lower
central support fitting (including cracking) has been reported.
    In the worst case scenario a complete failure of the 80VU
fittings in combination with a high load factor or strong vibration
could lead to failure of the rack structure and/or computers or
rupture/disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more
computers located in the 80VU. This rack contains computers for
Flight Controls, Communication and Radio-navigation. These functions
are duplicated across other racks but during critical phases of
flight the multiple system failures/re-configuration may constitute
an unsafe condition.
* * * * *
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0670;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-339-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the
specified products, which was published in the Federal Register on June
24, 2008 (73 FR 35601). That earlier NPRM proposed to require actions
intended to address the unsafe condition for the products listed above.
    Since that NPRM was issued, the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-
0276R1, dated March 18, 2010 (corrected April 12, 2010) (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to revise EASA AD 2007-0276, dated October
26, 2007, which we referred to in the NPRM. The MCAI adds an optional
terminating action to the repetitive inspections. The MCAI states:

    Damage to the lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack, typically
elongated holes, migrated bushes [bushings], and/or missing bolts
have been reported in-service. In addition damage to the lower
central support fitting (including cracking) has been reported.
    In the worst case scenario a complete failure of the 80VU
fittings in combination with a high load factor or strong vibration
could lead to failure of the rack structure and/or computers or
rupture/disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more
computers located in the 80VU. This rack contains computers for
Flight Controls, Communication and Radio-navigation. These functions
are duplicated across other racks but during critical phases of
flight the multiple system failures/re-configuration may constitute
an unsafe condition.
    For the reasons described above, EASA AD 2007-0276 was issued to
require repetitive [detailed] inspection of the lower lateral 80VU
fittings for damage and [repetitive detailed] inspection of the
lower central 80VU support for damage and cracking, and the
accomplishment of associated corrective actions, depending on
findings.
    Since AD 2007-0276 was issued, Airbus introduced a new
reinforced lower central support for the 80VU.
    This [EASA] AD has been revised to introduce the new reinforced
lower central support as an optional terminating action to the
repetitive inspections.
* * * * *
The associated corrective actions include repair or replacement of the
lower lateral fittings and/or replacement of the lower central support.
Modifying the 80VU lower lateral fittings (the modification includes
replacing the 80VU lower lateral fittings) eliminates the need for the
repetitive inspection of the lower lateral fittings. Replacing the 80VU
lower central support (i.e., replacing the pyramid fitting on the 80VU
rack with a new, reinforced fitting) eliminates the need for the
repetitive inspection of the lower central support. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

    Also, we have determined that for any cracking found during an
inspection specified in paragraph (i) of this supplemental NPRM
(referred to as paragraph (f)(3) in the NPRM), the corrective action
specified in paragraph (j) of this supplemental NPRM (referred to as
paragraph (f)(4) in the NPRM) must be done before further flight. Our
policy specifies the requirement to repair known cracks before further
flight (though we might make exceptions to this policy in certain cases
of unusual need, as discussed below). This policy is based on the fact
that such damaged airplanes do not conform to the FAA-certificated type
design and, therefore, are not airworthy until a properly approved
repair is made. We consider the compliance times in this AD to be
adequate to allow operators to acquire parts to have on hand in the
event that a crack is detected during inspection. Therefore, we have
determined that, due to the safety implications and consequences
associated with such cracking, any subject 80VU rack lower central
support that is found to be cracked must be replaced or modified before
further flight.
    Also, since the NPRM was issued, the AD format has been revised,
and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the
corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this supplemental
NPRM.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments received on the earlier
NPRM.

Requests To Include Optional Terminating Action

    Northwest Airlines, and Air Transport Association (ATA) on behalf
of its members United Airlines and US Airways, request that we refer to
a new Airbus service bulletin under development that provides a
permanent terminating action for the central support fitting. United
points out that the terminating action is preferable because the
inspection proposed in the NPRM is intrusive to aircraft systems and
very time consuming.
    We agree with the commenters' request to refer to the new Airbus
service information as the appropriate source of service information
for modification of the central support. Since issuance of the NPRM,
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1215, dated November 5,
2008. That service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the
lower central support of the 80VU rack with a new, reinforced support.
We have added paragraph (k) to this supplemental NPRM to specify that
doing this replacement terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g)
and (i) of this AD. We have also revised paragraph (d) of this
supplemental NPRM to include reference to the ATA Code 53: Fuselage,
which is the subject of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1215, dated
November 5, 2008.

Explanation of Additional Revised Service Information

    Since we issued the NPRM, Airbus has issued Mandatory Service
Bulletin A320-25A1555, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated
February 18, 2008; and Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-25A1555,
Revision 02, including Appendix 1, dated November 5, 2008. Airbus has
also issued Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, Revision 01, dated February
7, 2008; and Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, Revision 02, dated November
5, 2008. (We referred to Airbus Service Bulletins A320-25A1555 and
A320-25-1557, both dated June 14, 2007, in the NPRM as the appropriate
source of service information for doing the proposed actions.) Airbus
issued Revision 01 of those service bulletins to include minor
improvements in the procedures. Airbus issued Revision 02 of those
service bulletins to include a reference to the terminating action
specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1215, dated November 5,
2008.
    No additional work is necessary for airplanes on which any revision
of these service bulletins has been accomplished before the effective
date of this AD; therefore, we have revised paragraphs (g) and (n) of
this supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision 02 of Airbus Service
Bulletins A320-25A1555 and A320-25-1557. We have also revised
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision
02 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-25A1555. We have also
revised this supplemental NPRM to include a new paragraph (l) to give
credit for actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Airbus service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this
AD.

Clarification of Repetitive Interval

    We have revised the repetitive interval specified in paragraph
(g)(2) of this supplemental NPRM (referred to as paragraph (f)(1)(i) in
the NRPM) to specify that the next inspection must be done within
24,000 flight cycles after doing the replacement and thereafter the

inspection must be done at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles.
Paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of the NPRM specified a repetitive interval of
24,000 flight cycles for airplanes on which the repair (replacement)
had been done. However, after exceeding 24,000 flight cycles since the
replacement, the inspections must be done at intervals not to exceed
4,500 flight cycles in order to adequately address the identified
unsafe condition.
    We have also revised the repetitive interval specified in paragraph
(i)(2) of this supplemental NPRM (referred to as paragraph (f)(3)(ii)
in the NRPM) to specify that the next inspection must be done within
24,000 flight cycles after doing the repair or replacement and
thereafter the inspection must be done at the applicable intervals
specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD. Paragraph
(f)(3)(ii) of the NPRM specified a repetitive interval of 24,000 flight
cycles for airplanes on which the repair or replacement had been done.
However, after exceeding 24,000 flight cycles since the repair or
replacement, the inspections must be done within the applicable
intervals specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD in
order to address the identified unsafe condition.
    We have also revised paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD
(referred to as paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) and (f)(3)(i)(B) of the NPRM)
by removing the phrase ``as of the effective date of the AD.'' The
repetitive intervals specified in those paragraphs are not dependent on
how many flight cycles the support has accumulated as of the effective
date of the AD, e.g., for a lower central support that has accumulated
23,000 total flight cycles (at the time the inspection specified in
paragraph (i) is done), the inspection should be repeated at intervals
not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles until the lower central support has
accumulated 30,000 total flight cycles and then the inspection should
be repeated at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier
NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this proposed AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 678 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 82 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,592 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $6,483,036, or $9,562 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2008-0670; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
339-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 30, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, A318-112, A319-
111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-

132, A319-133, A320-111, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-231,
A320-232, A320-233, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-
212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes on which
Airbus Modification 34804 has been embodied in production or on
which Airbus Service Bulletins A320-25-1557 and A320-53-1215 have
been done in service.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25:
Equipment/Furnishings, and Code 53: Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Damage to the lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack, typically
elongated holes, migrated bushes [bushings], and/or missing bolts
have been reported in-service. In addition damage to the lower
central support fitting (including cracking) has been reported.
    In the worst case scenario a complete failure of the 80VU
fittings in combination with a high load factor or strong vibration
could lead to failure of the rack structure and/or computers or
rupture/disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more
computers located in the 80VU. This rack contains computers for
Flight Controls, Communication and Radio-navigation. These functions
are duplicated across other racks but during critical phases of
flight the multiple system failures/re-configuration may constitute
an unsafe condition.
* * * * *

Compliance

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

Repetitive Inspections of the 80V Rack Lower Lateral Fittings

    (g) Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or
within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Do a special detailed inspection of the 80VU
rack lower lateral fittings for damage (e.g., broken fitting,
missing bolts, migrated bushings, material burr, or rack in contact
with the fitting) of the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, Revision 02, dated November 5, 2008.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Modifying the
80VU lower lateral fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, Revision 02,
dated November 5, 2008, terminates the inspection requirements of
this paragraph.
    (1) For airplanes on which the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings
have not been replaced in accordance with the Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A320-25A1555: Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles.
    (2) For airplanes on which the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings
have been replaced in accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A320-25A1555: Do the next inspection within 24,000 flight
cycles after doing the replacement and repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles.
    (h) If any damage is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, do all applicable corrective actions
(inspection and/or repair) in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions and timeframes given in Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A320-25A1555, Revision 02, dated November 5, 2008.

Repetitive Inspections of the 80V Rack Lower Central Support

    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or
within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Do a special detailed inspection of the 80VU
rack lower central support for cracking, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A320-25A1555, Revision 02, dated November 5, 2008. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at the interval specified in paragraph (i)(1)
or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Replacing the pyramid fitting
on the 80VU rack with a new, reinforced fitting, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1215, dated November 5, 2008, terminates the inspection requirements
of this paragraph.
    (1) For airplanes on which the 80VU rack lower central support
has not been repaired or replaced in accordance with Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-25A1555 or Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-25-1557: Repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval
specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (i) For airplanes on which the lower central support has
accumulated 30,000 total flight cycles or more: At intervals not to
exceed 500 flight cycles.
    (ii) For airplanes on which the lower central support has
accumulated less than 30,000 total flight cycles: At intervals not
to exceed 4,500 flight cycles, without exceeding 30,750 total flight
cycles on the support for the first repetitive inspection.
    (2) For airplanes on which the 80VU rack lower central support
has been repaired or replaced in accordance with Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A320-25A1555 or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-
1557: Do the next inspection within 24,000 flight cycles after the
repair or replacement and thereafter repeat the inspection at the
interval specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD,
as applicable.
    (j) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (i) of this AD, before further flight, replace the pyramid
fitting on the 80VU rack with a new, reinforced fitting, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-53-1215, dated November 5, 2008. Doing this
replacement terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (i)
of this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

    (k) Doing the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2)
of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (i) of
this AD.
    (1) Replacing the pyramid fitting on the 80VU rack with a new,
reinforced fitting, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1215, dated November
5, 2008.
    (2) Modifying the 80VU lower lateral fittings, in accordance
with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, Revision 02, dated
November 5, 2008.

Credit Service Bulletins

    (l) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service information identified in Table 1 of
this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of this AD.

           Table 1--Previous Revisions of Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Service information        Revision level             Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Mandatory Service       01..............  February 18, 2008.
 Bulletin A320-25A1555.
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-  Original........  June 14, 2007.
 25A1555.
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-  Original........  June 14, 2007.
 25-1557.
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-  01..............  February 7, 2008.
 25-1557.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows:
    (1) Although the MCAI or service information allows further
flight after cracks are found during compliance with the required
action, (j) of this AD requires that you do a corrective action
before further flight.
    (2) Although the MCAI specifies doing a repair or replacement
and repetitive inspections after the repair or replacement is done
if cracking is found in the 80VU rack lower central support,
paragraph (j) of this AD requires that you perform a replacement,
which eliminates the need for further repetitive inspections of the
part.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (m) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-
116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim
Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (n) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0276R1,
dated March 18, 2010 (corrected April 12, 2010), and the service
information identified in Table 2 of this AD, for related
information.

                  Table 2--Related Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Service information        Revision level             Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Mandatory Service       02..............  November 5, 2008.
 Bulletin A320-25A1555.
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-  02..............  November 5, 2008.
 25-1557.
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-  Original........  November 5, 2008.
 53-1215.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 27, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19144 Filed 8-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11014-11015]
[DOCID:fr12mr07-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-329-000]

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed on
Appendix A attached to the filing, to become effective April 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or

protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4391 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30580-30583]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11543]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77813; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related
to Fees as They Apply to the Equity Options Platform

May 11, 2016.
    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 May 2, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity
options platform (``EDGX Options'') to: (1) Modify an existing tier and
add a new tier to its existing tiered pricing structure; and (2)
simplify the Exchange's routing fees, as further described below.
Tiered Pricing Changes
    The Exchange currently offers two pricing tiers under footnotes 1
and 2 of the fee schedule, Customer Volume Tiers and Market Maker
Volume Tiers, respectively. Under the tiers, Members that achieve
certain volume criteria may qualify for reduced fees or enhanced
rebates for Customer \6\ and Market Maker \7\ orders. The Exchange
proposes to modify Customer Volume Tier 6 under footnote 1 and to add
an additional Market Maker Volume Tier under footnote 2, as further
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction identified
by a Member for clearing in the Customer range at the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC''), excluding any transaction for a
Broker Dealer or a ``Professional'' as defined in Exchange Rule
16.1.
    \7\ The term ``Market Maker'' applies to any transaction
identified by a Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the
OCC, where such Member is registered with the Exchange as a Market
Maker as defined in Rule 16.1(a)(37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fee code PC and NC are currently appended to all Customer orders in
Penny Pilot Securities \8\ and Non-Penny Pilot Securities,\9\
respectively, and result in a standard rebate of $0.01 per contract.
The Customer Volume Tiers in footnote 1 consist of six separate tiers,
each providing an enhanced rebate to a Member's Customer orders that
yield fee codes PC or NC upon satisfying monthly volume criteria
required by the respective tier. For instance, pursuant to Customer
Volume Tier 1, the lowest volume tier, a Member will receive a rebate
of $0.05 per contract where the Member has an ADV \10\ in Customer
orders equal to or greater than 0.10% of average TCV.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Penny Pilot Security'' applies to those issues
that are quoted pursuant to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and
Policy .01.
    \9\ The term ``Non-Penny Pilot Security'' applies to those
issues that are not Penny Pilot Securities quoted pursuant to
Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01.
    \10\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of contracts added or removed, combined, per day.
    \11\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges to the consolidated transaction
reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply, excluding
volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System
Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Customer Volume Tier 6, a Member currently will receive
a rebate of $0.21 per contract where: (1) The Member has an ADV in
Customer orders equal to or greater than 0.25% of average TCV; and (2)
the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater than
0.25% of average TCV. In order to encourage the entry of additional
orders to the Exchange, Exchange proposes to modify Customer Volume
Tier 6 to reduce the criteria necessary to qualify. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to provide the same rebate, $0.21 per contract, as it
currently provides for Customer Volume Tier 6, but to provide such
rebate where: (1) The Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal to or
greater than 0.20% of average TCV; and (2) the Member has an ADV in
Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.15% of average TCV. The
Exchange believes that this change will make Customer Volume Tier 6
more attainable for additional Members.
    Fee code PM and NM are currently appended to all Market Maker
orders in Penny Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities,
respectively, and result in a standard fee of $0.19 per contract. The
Market Maker Volume Tiers in footnote 2 consist of six separate tiers,
each providing a reduced fee or rebate to a Member's Market Maker
orders that yield fee codes PM or NM upon satisfying monthly volume
criteria required by the respective tier. For instance, pursuant to
Market Maker Volume Tier 1, the lowest volume tier, a Member will pay a
reduced fee of $0.16 per contract where the Member has an ADV in Market
Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.05% of average TCV. Pursuant to
Market Maker Volume Tier 6, the highest volume tier, a Member will
receive a rebate of $0.01 per contract where the Member has an ADV in
Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 1.10% of average TCV.
    In addition to the change to the qualifying criteria for Customer
Volume Tier 6 set forth above, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new
Market Maker Volume Tier with the same criteria as amended Customer
Volume Tier 6. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to

adopt Market Maker Volume Tier 7, providing a reduced fee of $0.10 per
contract where: (1) The Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal to
or greater than 0.20% of average TCV; and (2) the Member has an ADV in
Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.15% of average TCV. As
with all other fees and rebates pursuant to footnote 2, the fee would
be charged for transactions yielding fee code PM and NM.
    The Exchange notes that the reduced fee of $0.10 per contract is
the same fee as Market Maker Volume Tier 3, which is provided where the
Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.20%
of average TCV. By introducing Tier 7, the Exchange is providing an
additional mechanism for a Member to achieve this reduced fee. The
Exchange also notes that the proposed fee and associated criteria are
intended to encourage the entry of both Customer orders and Market
Maker orders by providing a hybrid tier that rewards the entry of both.
Although the qualifying criteria includes Customer orders, as noted
above, the proposed reduced fee of $0.10 per contract would only be
awarded to a Member's Market Maker orders that yield fee codes PM or NM
upon satisfying the monthly volume criteria (and not such Member's
Customer orders). However, as noted above, because the criteria are the
same, a Member qualifying for Market Maker Volume Tier 7 would also
qualify for Customer Volume Tier 6, and thus would be entitled to
enhanced rebates for such Member's Customer orders.
    In addition to the changes described above, the Exchange proposes
to add the phrase ``of average TCV'' to the end of the criteria for
existing Market Making Volume Tiers 1 through 6. Although the filing
initially adopting such tiers did include the language in describing
the applicable criteria, the Exchange believes that such language is
appropriate for the fee schedule. This change would ensure that the
language of footnote 2 is consistent with footnote 1, which does
include this phrase in each Tier's criteria description. The Exchange
also proposes to change all references to ``Customer Orders'' to
``Customer orders'' and from ``Market Maker Orders'' to ``Market Maker
orders'' throughout footnote 1 and footnote 2. These changes will also
ensure consistency on the fee schedule with respect to the word
``order'', which is not contained in any of the defined terms on the
fee schedule.
Routing Fees
    The Exchange proposes to modify the fees charged for orders routed
away from the Exchange and executed at various away options exchanges.
The Exchange currently has specific rates and associated fee codes for
each away options exchange.\12\ Such rates are further divided at each
options exchange into either two categories in order to differentiate
between Customer and Non-Customer \13\ orders or into four categories
in order to differentiate between Customer and Non-Customer orders and
then into Penny Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities.\14\ In
order to simplify routing fees for executions at away options
exchanges, the Exchange proposes to charge flat rates for routing to
other options exchanges that have been placed into groups based on the
approximate cost of routing to such venues. The grouping of away
options exchanges is based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by
each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (i.e., clearing
fees, connectivity and other infrastructure costs, membership fees,
etc.) (collectively, ``Routing Costs''). To address different fees at
various other options exchanges, the Exchange proposes to adopt five
different fees and associated fee codes applicable to routing to away
options exchanges, as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Other options exchanges to which the Ewchange routes
include: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''), BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX''), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE''), C2 Options Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), International
Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE''), ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE
Gemini''), ISE Mercury, LLC (``ISE Mercury''), Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') Nasdaq Options Market LLC
(``NOM''), Nasdaq OMX BX LLC (``BX Options''), Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC
(``PHLX''), NYSE Arca, Inc (``ARCA''), and NYSE MKT LLC (``AMEX'').
    \13\ The term ``Non-Customer'' applies to any transaction that
is not a Customer order.
    \14\ The Exchange notes that it still applies a single rate for
order routed to and executed at the newest options exchange, ISE
Mercury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Non-Customer orders, the Exchange proposes to adopt
two fee codes: (1) Fee code RN, which would result in a fee of $0.85
per contract and would apply to all Non-Customer orders in Penny Pilot
Securities; and (2) fee code RO, which would result in a fee of $1.20
per contract and would apply to all Non-Customer orders in Non-Penny
Pilot Securities. The Exchange notes that the current range of fees
applicable to Non-Customer orders routed to other options exchanges is
from $0.60 per contract (fee code RF, applicable to Non-Customer orders
in Penny Pilot Securities executed at BZX Options) to $1.25 per
contract (fee code QG, applicable to Non-Customer orders executed at
NOM in Non-Penny Pilot Securities).
    With respect to Customer orders, the Exchange proposes to adopt
three fee codes: (1) Fee code RP, which would result in a fee of $0.25
per contract and would apply to all Customer orders routed to and
executed at AMEX, BOX, BX Options, CBOE, ISE Mercury, MIAX or PHLX; (2)
fee code RQ, which would result in a fee of $0.70 per contract and
would apply to all Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities routed to
and executed at ARCA, BZX Options, C2, ISE, ISE Gemini or NOM; and (3)
fee code RR, which would result in a fee of $0.90 per contract and
would apply to all Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities routed
to and executed at ARCA, BZX Options, C2, ISE, ISE Gemini or NOM. The
Exchange notes that the current range of fees applicable to Customer
orders routed to other options exchanges is from no charge per contract
(fee code BD, applicable to Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot
Securities executed at BX Options) to $0.94 per contract (fee code RD,
applicable to Customer orders executed at BZX Options in Non-Penny
Pilot Securities).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange again notes that it currently applies a single
rate for orders routed to and executed at the newest options
exchange, ISE Mercury. As such, Customer orders execute at ISE
Mercury technically pay the highest rate today, a fee of $0.99 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general matter, the groupings described above in most
instances attempt to differentiate between the Routing Costs applicable
to either executions of orders in Penny Pilot Securities versus those
in Non-Penny Pilot Securities or between fee ranges typical of
exchanges that operate primarily a maker/taker or price/time market
model (generally imposing higher fees, including for Customer orders)
versus exchanges that operate primarily a pro rata or customer priority
market model (generally imposing lower fees, especially for Customer
orders).
    As set forth above, the Exchange's proposed approach to routing
fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain flat fees that
approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges. The
Exchange will then monitor the fees charged as compared to the costs of
its routing services, as well as monitoring for specific fee changes by
other options exchanges, and intends to adjust its flat routing fees
and/or groupings to ensure that the Exchange's fees do indeed result in
a rough approximation of overall Routing Costs, and are not
significantly higher or lower in any area. Although there may be
instances where the Exchanges [sic] fee to a particular options
exchange is indeed significantly higher than the fee charged by such

options exchange, the Exchange believes that this is appropriate for
several reasons discussed in further detail below, including the
simplicity that it will provide Users of the Exchange's routing
services.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\16\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed fees and rebates pursuant to the
tiered pricing structure are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-
discriminatory. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants may readily send order flow to many competing
venues if they deem fees at the Exchange to be excessive. As a new
options exchange, the proposed fee structure remains intended to
attract order flow to the Exchange by offering market participants a
competitive yet simple pricing structure. At the same time, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to incrementally adopt incentives
intended to help to contribute to the growth of the Exchange.
    Volume-based rebates such as those currently maintained on the
Exchange have been widely adopted by options exchanges and are
equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and
provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to
the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels
of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the
price and volume discovery processes. The proposed modification to the
Customer Volume Tier and the proposed addition of Market Maker Volume
Tier 7 is each intended to incentivize Members to send additional
Customer orders and Market Maker orders to the Exchange in an effort to
qualify for the enhanced rebate or lower fee made available by the
tiers.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed tiers are reasonable, fair
and equitable, and non-discriminatory, for the reasons set forth above
with respect to volume-based pricing generally and because such changes
will incentivize participants to further contribute to market quality.
The proposed tiers will provide an additional way for market
participants to qualify for enhanced rebates or reduced fees. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed tiered pricing structure is
consistent with pricing previously offered by the Exchange as well as
other options exchanges and does not represent a significant departure
from such pricing structures.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., Bats BZX Options Fee Schedule, Footnote 1,
Customer Add Volume Tier 5, which provides an enhanced rebate to
Customer orders on BZX Options based on both Customer volume and
Market Maker volume. The BZX Options Fee Schedule is available at:
http://www.batsoptions.com/support/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed routing structure, the Exchange again
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues or
providers of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
As explained above, the Exchange proposes to approximate the cost of
routing to other options exchanges, including other applicable costs to
the Exchange for routing, in order to provide a simplified and easy to
understand pricing model. The Exchange believes that a pricing model
based on approximate Routing Costs is a reasonable, fair and equitable
approach to pricing. Specifically, the Exchange believes that its
proposal to modify fees is fair, equitable and reasonable because the
fees are generally an approximation of the cost to the Exchange for
routing orders to such exchanges. The Exchange believes that its flat
fee structure for orders routed to various venues is a fair and
equitable approach to pricing, as it will provide certainty with
respect to execution fees at groups of away options exchanges. In order
to achieve its flat fee structure, taking all costs to the Exchange
into account, the Exchange will necessarily charge a higher premium to
route to certain options exchanges than to others. As a general matter,
the Exchange believes that the proposed fees will allow it to recoup
and cover its costs of providing routing services to such exchanges and
to make some additional profit in exchange for the services it
provides. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee structure
for orders routed to and executed at these away options exchanges is
fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it
applies equally to all Members. Finally, the Exchange notes that it
intends to consistently evaluate its routing fees, including profit and
loss attributable to routing, as applicable, in connection with the
operation of a flat fee routing service, and would consider future
adjustments to the proposed pricing structure to the extent it was
recouping a significant profit or loss from routing to away options
exchanges.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to its fee schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the
proposal is a competitive proposal that is seeking to further the
growth of the Exchange and to simplify the Exchange's fees for routing
orders to away options exchanges. With respect to the tiered pricing
changes, the Exchange has structured the proposed fees and rebates to
attract additional volume in Market Maker and Customer orders, however,
the Exchange believes that its pricing for all capacities is
competitive with that offered by other options exchanges. With respect
to the proposed routing fee structure, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are competitive in that they will provide a simple
approach to routing pricing that some Members may favor. Additionally,
Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing, including pricing
for transactions on the Exchange as well as routing fees, if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value. In particular, with
respect to routing services, such services are available to Members
from other broker-dealers as well as other options exchanges. The
Exchange also notes that Members may choose to mark their orders as
ineligible for routing to avoid incurring routing fees.\19\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(7) (describing ``Book Only''
orders) and Exchange Rule 21.9(a)(1) (describing the Exchange's
routing process, which requires orders to be designated as available
for routing).

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-15 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 No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-15. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-15, and should be
submitted on or before June 7, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\15 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11543 Filed 5-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 12379]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05680]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2520-076]

Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for new license for the Mattaceunk
Hydroelectric Project, located on the Penobscot River in Aroostook and
Penobscot Counties, Maine, and has prepared a Draft Environmental
Assessment (DEA) for the project. The project does not occupy federal
land.
    The DEA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential
effects of continued operation and maintenance of the project. The DEA
concludes that relicensing the project, with appropriate environmental
protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the DEA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected], or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-2520-076.
    For further information, contact Adam Peer at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

    Dated: March 15, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05680 Filed 3-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21384-21385]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08290]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0013; OMB No. 1660-0033]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request.

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning the certification of flood proof
residential basements in Special Flood Hazard Areas.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2013-0013. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Email. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket
ID FEMA-2013-0013 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Chang, Insurance Examiner,
FEMA, Mitigation Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER> for additional
information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies
of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202)
646-3347 or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
is authorized by Public Law 90-448 (1968) and expanded by Public Law
93-234 (1973). The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 requires that
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provide flood insurance.
Title 44 CFR 60.3, Floodplain management criteria for flood-prone
areas, ensures that communities participating in the NFIP, in Special
Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), have basement construction at the lowest
floor elevation or above the 100 year flood elevation, or Base Flood
Elevation. This requirement is to reduce the risks of flood hazards to
new buildings in SFHAs and reduce insurance rates. Title 44 CFR 60.6(c)
allows communities to apply for an exception to permit and certify the

construction of flood proof residential basements in SFHAs. This
certification must ensure that the community has demonstrated that the
areas of special flood hazard, in which residential basements will be
permitted, are subject to shallow and low velocity flooding and
adequate flood warning time to notify residents of impending floods.

Collection of Information

    Title: Residential Basement Floodproofing Certification.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0033.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 086-0-24, Residential Basement Floodproofing
Certificate.
    Abstract: The Residential Basement Floodproofing Certification is
completed by an engineer or architect and certifies that the basement
floodproofing meets the minimum floodproofing specifications of FEMA.
This certification is for residential structures located in non-coastal
Special Flood Hazard Areas in communities that have received an
exception to the requirement that structures be built at or above the
Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Residential structures with certification
showing the building is flood proofed to at least 1 foot above the BFE
are eligible for lower rates on flood insurance.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 100.
    Number of Responses: 100.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 325 Hours.

                                                       Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of                  Average       Total                     Total
                                                                Number of    responses      Total      burden per     annual      Average       annual
         Type of respondent            Form name/form number   respondents      per       number of     response   burden  (in  hourly wage   respondent
                                                                             respondent   responses    (in hours)     hours)        rate         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business or other for-profit........  Residential Basement             100            1          100     3.25 hrs          325       $51.91      $16,871
                                       Floodproofing
                                       Certificate/FEMA Form
                                       086-0-24.
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  .......................          100  ...........          100  ...........          325  ...........      $16,871
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note: The ``Avg. Hourly Wage Rate'' for each respondent includes a 1.4 multiplier to reflect a fully-loaded wage rate.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $16,871.00. The annual costs to respondents operations
and maintenance costs for technical services is $35,000.00. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$4,092.05.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: March 28, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-08290 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P