[Federal Register: February 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 32)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7643-7645]
[DOCID:fr19fe09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0169; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-45-AD;
Amendment 39-15819; AD 2009-04-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG,
BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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:

    The application of most recent 3D FEM modeling has resulted in
the need to reconsider the disc lives as currently shown in the Time
Limits Manual. The current Post Certification Life Statement for the
low pressure (LP) compressor (fan) disc assembly revises the
Declared Safe Cyclic Life (DSCL) from 33,000 flight cycles to 25,000
flight cycles for both the BR715 LP (fan) disc assembly Part No. (P/
N) BRH10048 and BR715 LP compressor (fan) disc assembly P/N
BRH19253, when installed in the BR700-715A1-30 engine model and
operated against the Hawaiian Flight Mission.

We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the LP
compressor (fan) disc assembly and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2008 (73
FR 6638). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that:

    The application of most recent 3D FEM modeling has resulted in
the need to reconsider the disc lives as currently shown in the Time
Limits Manual. The current Post Certification Life Statement for the
low pressure (LP) compressor (fan) disc assembly revises the
Declared Safe Cyclic Life (DSCL) from 33,000 flight cycles to 25,000
flight cycles for both the BR715 LP (fan) disc assembly P/N BRH10048
and BR715 LP compressor (fan) disc assembly P/N BRH19253, when
installed in the BR700-715A1-30 engine model and operated against
the Hawaiian Flight Mission.

    This AD requires, within 25 flight cycles after the effective date
of the AD:
     Amending the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of
the Time Limits Manual SUBTASK 05-10-01-860-016, by revising the
``GIVEN LIFE A1-30 RATING (FLIGHT CYCLES)'' for both the LP compressor
(fan) disc assembly P/N BRH10048 and LP compressor (fan) disc assembly
P/N BRH19253 from 33,000 flight cycles to 25,000 flight cycles; and
     Checking the lifing of both the LP compressor (fan) disc
assembly P/N BRH10048 and LP compressor (fan) disc assembly P/N
BRH19253 if the relevant compressor (fan) disc assembly is currently
installed or was previously installed, in the BR700-715A1-30 engine
model and operated under the Hawaiian Flight Mission; and
     Removing the relevant compressor (fan) disc assembly from
service before further flight, if the consumed life has exceeded the
maximum approved life specified in the ALS.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Change the AD Applicability

    Rolls-Royce Deutschland requests that we change the AD
applicability from ``This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd &
Co KG (RRD), BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30
turbofan engines, with a low pressure (LP) compressor disc assembly,
part number (P/N) BRH10048 or P/N BRH19253, when installed in the
BR700-715A1-30 engine model and operated against the Hawaiian Flight
Mission'' to ``This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD), BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan
engines, with a low pressure (LP) compressor disc assembly, P/N
BRH10048 or P/N BRH19253''. The commenter states that due to fan module
mixing between engine models, the AD is applicable to all relevant fan
assemblies that have, are, could, or will operate against the Hawaiian
Flight Mission, when installed in the BR710-715A1-30 engine.
    We agree, and changed the AD applicability.

Request To Combine the Compliance Requirements

    Rolls-Royce Deutschland requests that the AD require the operators
check the lifing of the LP compressor disc assemblies, P/N BRH10048 and
P/N BRH19253, using the amended Time Limits Manual (TLM), whether
currently installed or previously installed in the BR700-715A1-30
engine, and operated under the Hawaiian Flight mission.
    We partially agree. Operators are responsible for following the
applicable ALS of the TLM to ensure that all critical rotating parts
are replaced within the life limitations specified in the Manual.
However, for clarification purposes, we included this action in the AD.

Other AD Changes

    We determined the AD must be complied with, within 25 flight cycles
after the effective date of the AD, instead of 100 flight cycles after
the effective date, as proposed, to expeditiously amend the ALS of the
TLM with life reduction of the relevant fan disk assembly.
    We also require removing fan disk assemblies from service before
the next flight if their consumed life has exceeded the maximum
approved life as specified in the ALS of the TLM. All life limited part
must be removed from service before reaching its declared life in the
ALS.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 240 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry. This LP compressor (fan) disc assembly
removal does not impose any additional labor costs if performed at the
time of scheduled engine overhaul. We also estimate that it will take
about one work-hour per engine to calculate and re-establish the
achieved cyclic life for an LP compressor (fan) disc assembly, and that
the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. We estimate that the
prorate cost of the life reduction per engine will be $33,000. Total
cost of this AD is, therefore, $7,939,200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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 AD:

2009-04-13 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (formerly BMW Rolls-
Royce GmbH, and BMW Rolls-Royce Aero Engines): Amendment 39-15819.
Docket No. FAA-2007-0169; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-45-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
26, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD), BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan
engines, with a low pressure (LP) compressor (fan) disc assembly,
part number (P/N) BRH10048 or P/N BRH19253. These engines are
installed on, but not limited to, McDonnell Douglas Corporation
model 717-200 airplanes.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuous airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    The application of most recent 3D FEM modeling has resulted in
the need to reconsider the disc lives as currently shown in the Time
Limits Manual. The current Post Certification Life Statement for the
low pressure (LP) compressor (fan) disc assembly revises the
Declared Safe Cyclic Life (DSCL) from 33,000 flight cycles to 25,000
flight cycles for both the BR715 LP (fan) disc assembly P/N BRH10048
and BR715 LP compressor (fan) disc assembly P/N BRH19253, when
installed in the BR700-715A1-30 engine model and operated against
the Hawaiian Flight Mission.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained
failure of the LP compressor (fan) disc assembly and damage to the
airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Within 25 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
do the following actions, unless already done.
    (1) Amend the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the
Time Limits Manual SUBTASK 05-10-01-860-016, by revising the ``GIVEN
LIFE A1-30 RATING (FLIGHT CYCLES)'' for both the LP compressor (fan)
disc assembly P/N BRH10048 and LP compressor (fan) disc assembly P/N
BRH19253 from 33,000 flight cycles to 25,000 flight cycles.
    (2) Check the lifing of both the LP compressor (fan) disc
assembly P/N BRH10048 and LP compressor (fan) disc assembly P/N
BRH19253 if the relevant compressor (fan) disc assembly is currently
installed or was previously installed, in the BR700-715A1-30 engine
model and operated under the Hawaiian Flight Mission.
    (3) Remove the relevant compressor (fan) disc assembly from
service before further flight, if the consumed life has exceeded the
maximum approved life specified in the ALS.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (f) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (g) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2007-0116-
E, dated May 4, 2007, for related information.
    (h) Contact Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 10, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-3355 Filed 2-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18820-18822]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0120]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; G4S
Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (G4S)

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (G4S)
has requested an exemption from the electronic logging device (ELD)
requirements in 49 CFR part 395 as applied to its drivers of customer/
government-owned vehicles used intermittently to perform passenger
transportation. The G4S request is limited to operations involving
customer/government-owned equipment. G4S states that this exemption, if
granted, would have no adverse impact on the safety of their
operations, as its drivers would continue to remain subject to the HOS
regulations and would complete paper records of duty status (RODS),
when applicable. FMCSA requests public comment on G4S's application for
exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2017-0120 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting

material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2017-0120), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2017-0120'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant
to the application, including any safety analyses that have been
conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    G4S states that it is an international security solutions group,
with operations in more than 100 countries and more than 54,000
employees in North America alone. G4S offers its customers a suite of
products and services, including risk consulting and investigations,
systems integration, security software and technology, and security
professionals. A component of G4S's operations is detainee and prisoner
transport. Government agencies across the country, including the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and state/county police
departments, contract G4S to safely and securely transport prisoners,
offenders, and illegal aliens. In order to perform these transportation
services, G4S is registered with the FMCSA as a for-hire motor carrier.
While the company maintains a relatively small fleet of vehicles, a
significant portion of its transportation services are performed by G4S
employees in customer/government-owned equipment (e.g., buses and 15-
passenger-vans).
    G4S is aware of the upcoming ELD mandate and fully supports the
Agency's efforts to curb fatigued driving. Moreover, the company has
already started the process of selecting and installing compliant ELDs
in its own fleet of vehicles. G4S, however, believes an exemption is in
order for instances when its drivers operate customer/government-owned
equipment to perform passenger transportation services.
    In these instances, it is the customer, not G4S that owns and
maintains the vehicles. For its part, G4S provides qualified drivers to
operate the vehicles and is explicitly precluded, often by contract,
from making any modifications to or installing any equipment in the
vehicles. In numerous cases, G4S drivers operate different customer-
owned vehicles each and every trip--depending on which vehicles the
customer makes available--making it that more impracticable to install
any type of equipment in the vehicles. As the vehicles are different
each trip, it is possible, and even probable, that any ELD equipment
G4S might choose to employ for its own fleet of vehicles would not be
compatible with the customer-owned vehicles, and the company's drivers
would not be aware of that fact until it came time to operate the
equipment on a given day.
    According to G4S, in some cases, these customer-owned vehicles may
have been manufactured prior to the model year 2000--excluding them
from the ELD mandate--but again, G4S drivers would not necessarily be
privy to that fact until it came time to operate the vehicle. It is
also possible that in some instances G4S's drivers may not operate the
equipment beyond a 100 air-mile radius of their normal work reporting
location and may, therefore, fall under the short-haul exemption, but
that also is not always the case.
    In these ways, G4S claims that its operations are indistinguishable
from driveaway-towaway operations, which, are excluded from the ELD
mandate. In these instances, neither the carriers nor the drivers own
the vehicles being driven, nor are they authorized to make any
modifications to those vehicles. Similarly, in both cases, the vehicles
at issue may only be operated by the carrier's drivers for single trip.
    The only distinction between G4S's operations and those of
traditional driveaway-towaway companies is that the customer/
government-owned equipment operated by G4S's drivers is not the
commodity being moved. Although this is a distinction that precludes
G4S from taking advantage of the driveaway-towaway exemption, it is not
one that would, from a safety perspective, warrant ELDs in G4S's case
any more so than driveaway-towaway companies. In fact, the company
perceives no adverse impact to safety if the FMCSA were to grant this
exemption request, particularly in light of the existing driveaway-
towaway exemption. On the other hand, if the request was to be denied
by FMCSA, G4S stands to potentially lose its customer contracts with
several government agencies which, as explained, often contractually
prohibit the company from installing any equipment in their vehicles.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    For these reasons, G4S respectfully requests an exemption form the
ELD mandate for the operation of customer/

government-owned equipment to provide intermittent passenger
transportation. G4S states that the company believes that this
exemption proposal achieves a level of safety that is equivalent to the
ELD mandate that takes effect on December 18, 2017--because its drivers
would still be subject to the hours-of-service (HOS) restrictions
contained in 49 CFR part 395 and would continue to (when required)
record their duty status on paper logbooks, just as driveaway-towaway
drivers are authorized to do.
    A copy of G4S's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

    Issued on: April 14, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-08092 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45267-45268]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19326]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0792]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0035,
Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and
Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation
Devices (33 CFR part 159); without change. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 5,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2018-0792] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE, STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0792], and
must be received by November 5, 2018.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical,
Engineering and Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials &
Marine Sanitation Devices (33 CFR part 159).
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0035.
    Summary: This information is used by the Coast Guard to ensure that
regulations governing specific types of safety equipment, material and
Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) installed on commercial vessels and
pleasure craft are met. Manufacturers are required to submit drawings,
specifications, and laboratory test reports to the Coast Guard before
any approval is given.
    Need: Tile 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, and 4302 authorize the Coast
Guard to establish safety equipment and material regulations. Title 46
CFR parts 159 to 164 prescribe these requirements. Title 33 U.S.C. 1322
authorizes the Coast Guard to establish MSD regulations. Title 33 CFR
part 159 prescribes these rules. NVIC 8-01 (Chg 2) prescribes the
standards for navigation equipment. This information is used to
determine whether manufacturers are in compliance with Coast Guard
regulations. When the Coast Guard

approves any safety equipment, material or MSD for use on a commercial
vessel or pleasure craft, the manufacturer is issued a Certificate or
Approval.
    Forms: CGHQ-10030, Certificate of Approval.
    Respondents: Manufacturers of safety equipment, materials and
marine sanitation devices.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from
118,594 hours to 114,586 hours a year due to a decrease in the
estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: August 30, 3018.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-19326 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3508]
[DOCID:fr23ja06-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-45-000, et al.]

Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate
Filings

January 13, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Berkshire Hathaway Inc.and MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company

[Docket No. EC06-45-000]

    Take notice that on December 27, 2005, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company (collectively, Applicants) tender
for filing a notice of their withdrawal of their application under
section 203 of the Federal Power Act submitted on December 21, 2005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 23, 2006.

2. PJM Interconnection, LLC

[Docket No. EL02-23-010]

    Take notice that on December 30, 2005, PJM Interconnection, LLC
tendered for filing in compliance with Commission's Order of May 18,
2005, an information filing concerning operating of the ``Protocols''
adopted by the Commission in this proceeding.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 20, 2006.

3. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

[Docket No. EL02-23-01]

    Take notice that on December 30, 2005, Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. tendered for filing in compliance with Commission's
Order of May 18, 2005, an information filing concerning operating of
the ``Protocols'' adopted by the Commission in this proceeding.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 20, 2006.

4. United Illuminating Company

[Docket no. ER03-31-009]

    Take notice that on January 4, 2006, the United Illuminating
Company tendered for filing an Interconnection Agreement By and Between
the United Illuminating Company and Cross-Sound Cable Company, LLC in
compliance with Commission Order issued December 5, 2005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 25, 2006.

5. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

[Docket No. ER06-435-001]

    Take notice that on January 6, 2006, the Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc. tendered for filing a supplement to
its December 30, 2005 filing of Large Generator Interconnection
Agreement.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 27, 2006.

6. Xcel Energy Operating Companies

[Docket No. ER06-468-000]

    Take notice that on January 6, 2006, Xcel Energy Services Inc.
(XSE) tendered for filing Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 154; Second Revised
Sheet No. 297 thru 300; and Second Revised Sheet No. 309. XSE states
that these tariff sheets are being submitted on behalf of its utility
operating companies.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 27, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    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, 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 on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 email
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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-689 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7297-7299]
[DOCID:fr18fe10-67]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61505; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Postponement Fee and Hearing Session Fee Rules of the Codes of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer and Industry Disputes

February 4, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On November 4, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 amend Rules 12601(b) and 12902(a) of the Code
of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and
Rules 13601(b) and 13902(a) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for
Industry Disputes (``Industry Code'') (together, the ``Codes'') to
clarify the applicability of the fee waiver provision of the
postponement rule and to codify the hearing session fee for an
unspecified damages claim heard by one arbitrator. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 1,
2009.\3\ The Commission received two comment letters on the
proposal.\4\ FINRA submitted a response to these comments on January
29, 2010.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61057 (Nov. 24,
2009), 74 FR 62855 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from William A. Jacobson, Esq. and Kelly Cardin,
Cornell Law School, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated December 16, 2009 (``Cornell Letter''); letter from Scott R.
Shewan, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated December 21, 2009
(``PIABA Letter'').
    \5\ See letter from Mignon McLemore, FINRA Dispute Resolution,
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 29,
2010 (``FINRA Response'').

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

II. Description of the Proposal

Proposed Amendment to Rules 12601(b)(3) and 13601(b)(3)

    The rules of the Codes require arbitration hearings to be postponed
if the parties agree.\6\ Hearings may also be postponed by the Director
of FINRA Dispute Resolution (``Director''), by the arbitration panel in
its own discretion, or by the panel on a motion of a party.\7\ If a
hearing is postponed, the panel will assess a postponement fee against
one or more of the parties, which is typically equivalent to the
applicable hearing session fee that would have been assessed had the
hearing been held.\8\ If parties request and are granted a hearing
postponement within three business days of a scheduled hearing session
(i.e., a late postponement request), the Director will assess a late
postponement fee of $100 per arbitrator.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rules 12601(a)(1) and 13601(a)(1).
    \7\ See Rules 12601(a)(2) and 13601(a)(2).
    \8\ See Rules 12601(b)(1) and 13601(b)(1).
    \9\ See Rules 12601(b)(2) and 13601(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Codes provide for instances in which a postponement fee
is not assessed against the parties, such as if the parties agree to
submit a matter to mediation at FINRA,\10\ such provisions do not apply
to late postponement fees. Nevertheless, FINRA has received complaints
from arbitrators that parties are misusing the fee waiver provisions.
Specifically, parties who have made late postponement requests contend
that, if they agree to mediate their dispute through FINRA, they should
not be assessed a late postponement fee because Rules 12601(b)(3) and
12601(b)(3) waive the postponement fee if the parties agree to mediate
through FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rules 12601(b)(3) and 13601(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends Rules 12601(b)(3) and 13601(b)(3)
of the Codes to provide that no postponement fee will be charged if a
hearing is postponed because the parties agree to submit the matter to
mediation administered through FINRA, except that the parties shall pay
the additional fees described in Rule 12601(b)(2) or 13601(b)(2),
respectively, for late postponement requests.

Proposed Amendment to Rules 12902(a)(1) and 13902(a)(1)

    In FINRA's arbitration forum, if the parties and the arbitrator(s)
meet to discuss the issues giving rise to the arbitration dispute, the
meeting is called a ``hearing session.'' \11\ The Codes authorize FINRA
to assess hearing session fees against the parties for each hearing
session.\12\ The total amount charged for each hearing session is based
on the amount in dispute.\13\ For claims that do not request or specify
money damages (i.e., an unspecified damages claim), however, the Codes
give the Director the discretion to determine the amount of the hearing
session fee, not to exceed $1,200.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A hearing session can either be an arbitration hearing or a
prehearing conference. Rule 12100(n) and Rule 13100(n).
    \12\ See Rules 12902(a)(1) and Rule 13902(a)(1).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See Rules 12902(a)(2) and 13902(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the hearing session fee charged for each hearing session
in an unspecified damages claim heard by three arbitrators is
$1,000.\15\ However, for an unspecified damages claim heard by one
arbitrator, the rules list the hearing session fee as not applicable
(``N/A'').\16\ While the Codes give the Director the discretion to
determine the amount of the hearing session fee for an unspecified
damages claim, FINRA's current practice is to charge parties $450 per
hearing session for an unspecified damages claim heard by one
arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For hearing sessions involving three arbitrators in which
parties request damages ranging from $25,000.01 to over $500,000,
the amount for each hearing session can range from $600 to $1200.
    \16\ See Rules 12902(a)(1) and Rule 13902(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends Rules 12902(a)(1) and 13902(a)(1)
of the Codes to codify FINRA's current practice of charging $450 per
hearing session for an unspecified damages claim heard by one
arbitrator by changing the current amount for an unspecified damages
claim heard by one arbitrator from N/A to $450. However, while the
proposal would codify a fee for an unspecified damages claim heard by
one arbitrator, the Codes would continue to authorize the Director to
determine whether the hearing session fee should be more or less than
the amount specified in the fee schedule of the rule.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Rules 12902(a)(2) and 13902(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received two comments on the proposed rule
change.\18\ The comments, as well as FINRA's response, are discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cornell Letter supported the proposed amendments to Rules
12601(b)(3) and 12902(a)(1) of the Customer Code. With respect to the
proposed amendments to Rule 12601(b)(3), the Cornell Letter stated that
the fee would compensate arbitrators for their time and any
inconvenience resulting from a late hearing postponement, and could
also provide an incentive for parties to resolve or settle their claims
earlier in the process.\19\ With respect to the proposed amendment to
Rule 12902(a)(1), the Cornell Letter stated that codifying the hearing
session fee for unspecified damage claims heard by one arbitrator will
assist customers in understanding the fee structure prior to filing a
claim.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Cornell Letter at 2.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the PIABA Letter generally opposed both of the
proposed amendments to the Codes. Specifically, the PIABA Letter argued
that the amendments to the fee waiver provisions of the postponement
rules (Rules 12601(b)(3) and 13601(b)(3)) would improperly link the
amounts arbitrators are paid with whether the litigants comply with
FINRA timelines.\21\ The PIABA Letter further contended that the
amendments would create an impediment to settlement, stating that if
late postponement fees are imposed at all, they should be assessed
against the industry respondent.\22\ Additionally, the PIABA Letter
maintained that postponement fees in general impose an unfair burden on
the parties to a proceeding and should be abolished altogether.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See PIABA Letter at 1.
    \22\ See PIABA Letter at 2.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA noted that the fee waiver provision amendments
are necessary to achieve the purposes of the late postponement fee
rule, which are to both provide arbitrators with compensation in the
event that a scheduled hearing is postponed at the last minute, and to
curtail delays in arbitration proceedings by minimizing late
postponement requests through the imposition of additional fees for
such requests.\24\ With respect to assessing the fees against the
industry respondent, FINRA explained that the Codes allow arbitrators
to allocate all or a portion of the late postponement fee to the non-
requesting party or parties if it is determined the party or parties
caused or contributed to the need for the postponement.\25\ FINRA also
stated that the arbitrators are in the best position to determine how
the fee should be allocated.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See FINRA Response at 2-3.
    \25\ Id. at 3.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed amendments regarding the hearing
session fees, the PIABA Letter challenged the reasonableness of the fee
charged for an unspecified damages claim before one arbitrator compared
to

the fee charged for an unspecified damages claim before three
arbitrators.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See PIABA Letter at 2 (noting that if the proposed
amendments were adopted, a hearing session fee of $450 would be
charged for an unspecified damage claim heard by one arbitrator, but
that a hearing session fee of $1,000 would apply for an unspecified
damage claim heard by three arbitrators).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA disagreed with this assertion, explaining that the hearing
session fee is used to not only cover arbitrator honoraria, but also to
address certain fixed costs that are incurred in scheduling a hearing,
regardless of the amount in dispute or the number of arbitrators.\28\
Moreover, FINRA noted that the Codes authorize the Director to
determine whether the hearing session fee for an unspecified damages
claim should be more or less than the amount specified in the fee
schedule.\29\ Therefore, FINRA indicated that the proposed amendments
would not change its practice of reducing or waiving the fees in
documented cases of financial hardship.\30\ FINRA also noted that the
proposed fee for such unspecified damage claims is the same as the fee
charged for hearing sessions heard by one arbitrator involving claims
of $10,000.01 to over $500,000, thus providing case administration with
a uniform fee structure that is easy to apply.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See FINRA Response at 3-4.
    \29\ Id. at 4.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the PIABA Letter also asserted that both of the proposed
amendments would result in higher fees to the customer in a FINRA
arbitration proceeding.\32\ In its response, FINRA noted that the fees
contemplated by the proposed amendments are not new and do not
represent an increase in the fees currently charged.\33\ FINRA stated
that the proposed amendments clarify the fees applicable in these
situations.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See PIABA Letter at 1.
    \33\ See FINRA Response at 4.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully reviewing the proposed rule change, the comments
and FINRA's response, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\35\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\36\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Commission believes clarifying the
applicability of the fee waiver provision of the postponement rule will
assist in FINRA's efficient administration of the arbitration process
by ensuring that arbitrators receive some compensation in the event
that a scheduled hearing session is postponed as a result of a late
postponement request, and may serve as an incentive to parties to
settle their disputes earlier to avoid the imposition of additional
fees.
    The Commission also believes codifying the hearing session fee for
an unspecified damages claim heard by one arbitrator will ensure
consistent assessment of fees in FINRA's arbitration forum, will
provide more transparency in FINRA's fee structure, and will enhance
the efficiency of the forum by making the rules easier to understand
and apply.
    Further, the Commission believes that the proposed amendments are
consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that a
national securities association have rules that provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and other persons using its facilities.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the rule
change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\38\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-075) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3075 Filed 2-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15427-15431]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07242]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82991; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Market Data Fees

April 4, 2018.
    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 March 28, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') 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 proposes to amend the Cboe Data Services (``CDS'') fee
schedule to establish an optional Enhanced Controlled Data Distribution
Fee to further the distribution of the BBO,\5\ Book Depth,\6\ and
Complex Order Book \7\ (``COB'') data feeds (collectively, ``Cboe
Options Data Feeds'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The BBO Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes the
following information: (i) Outstanding quotes and standing orders at
the best available price level on each side of the market; (ii)
executed trades time, size, and price; (iii) totals of customer
versus non-customer contracts at the best bid and offer (``BBO'');
(iv) all-or-none contingency orders priced better than or equal to
the BBO; (v) expected opening price and expected opening size; (vi)
end-of-day summaries by product, including open, high, low, and
closing price during the trading session; (vi) recap messages any
time there is a change in the open, high, low or last sale price of
a listed option; (vii) COB information; and (viii) product IDs and
codes for all listed options contracts. The quote and last sale data
contained in the BBO data feed is identical to the data sent to the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') for redistribution to
the public.
    \6\ The Book Depth Data Feed is a real-time, low latency data
feed that includes all data contained in the BBO Data Feed described
above plus outstanding quotes and standing orders up to the first
four price levels on each side of the market, with aggregate size.
    \7\ The COB Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes
data regarding the Exchange's Complex Order Book and related complex
order information. The COB Data Feed contains the following
information for all Exchange-traded complex order strategies (multi-
leg strategies such as spreads, straddles and buy-writes): (i)
Outstanding quotes and standing orders on each side of the market
with aggregate size, (ii) data with respect to executed trades
(``last sale data''), and (iii) totals of customer versus non-
customer contracts.
    \8\ The ECDD Fee is based on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC's
(``Nasdaq'') Enhanced Display Solution fee. See Nasdaq Rule 7026(a).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 66165 (January 17,
2012), 77 FR 3313 (January 23, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Establish an Enhanced
Display Distributor Fee); and 73807 (December 10, 2014), 79 FR 74784
(December 16, 2014) (SR-Nasdaq-2014-117).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the

Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Cboe proposed to amend the CDS fee schedule to establish an
optional ECDD Fee to further the distribution of the Cboe Options Data
Feeds. The new data distribution model (an ``Enhanced Controlled Data
Distribution'' or ``ECDD'') offers a delivery method available to firms
seeking simplified market data administration and may be offered by
Customers to external subscribers that are using the Cboe Options Data
Feeds internally.
    The proposed optional ECDD Fee is intended to provide a new pricing
option for Customers \9\ who provide a controlled display or
entitlement product along with an Application Programming Interface
(``API'') or similar solution to subscribers. Non-display use is not
permitted under the ECDD Fee structure. To ensure compliance with this
new fee, Customers must monitor for any non-display or excessive use
suggesting that the subscriber is not in compliance. The Customer is
liable for any unauthorized use by the ECDD subscribers under the ECDD.
This proposed optional new fee only applies to Customer who distribute
Cboe Options Data Feeds externally and who opt for the ECDD option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``Customer'' is any person, company or other entity that,
pursuant to a market data agreement with CDS, is entitled to receive
data, either directly from CDS or through an authorized
redistributor (i.e., a Customer or an extranet service provider),
whether that data is distributed externally or used internally. The
CDS fee schedule for Exchange data is located at https://www.cboe.org/general-info/pdfframed?content=/publish/mdxfees/cboe-cds-fees-schedule-for-cboe-datafeeds.pdf§ion=SEC_MDX_CSM&title=Cboe%20CDS%20Fees%20Schedule.

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

    This new pricing and administrative option is in response to
industry demand, as well as due to changes in the technology to
distribute market data. By providing this new fee option, Customers
will have more administrative flexibility in their receipt and
distribution of the Cboe Options Data Feeds. Customers opting for the
ECDD Fee would still be fee liable for the applicable user fees for
Cboe BBO, Book Depth, and COB data feeds, as described in the CDS fee
schedule.\10\ Cboe proposes to permit Customers to select the ECDD Fee
at a minimum rate of $500 per user/per month each for the first 5
users, $200 per user/per month each for the 6th to the 20th user, and
$50 per User/per month each for the 21st or more users. The ECDD Fee is
independent from the applicable per user fees for each of the
individual Cboe Options Data Feeds as described above. However, a
single per user fee under the ECDD Fee would allow access to each of
the Cboe Options Data Feeds. These new ECDD Fees will become fee liable
for the billing month of April 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Customers redistributing the Cboe Options Data Feeds under
the proposed fee change will pay underlying rates applicable to the
Cboe Data Feed as set forth in the CDS fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This delivery option assesses a new fee schedule to Customers of
the Cboe Options Data Feeds that provide an API or similar solution.
Customers may either control the display of the data or offer APIs that
power third party software display applications where the Customer
controls the entitlement but not the display of data. The Customer must
first agree to reformat, redisplay and/or alter the Cboe Options Data
Feeds prior to retransmission, but not to affect the integrity of the
Cboe Options Data Feeds and not to render it inaccurate, unfair,
uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. An ECDD is any
controlled display product or entitlement containing the Cboe Data Feed
where the Customer controls a display of the Cboe Data Feed or offer
APIs that power third party software display applications where the
Customer controls the entitlement but not the display of data. The user
of an ECDD display may use the Cboe Data Feed for the user's own
purposes and may not redistribute the information outside of their
organization. The user may not redistribute the data internally to
other users in the same organization.
    In the past, Cboe has considered this type of retransmission to be
an uncontrolled display since the Customer does not control the
entitlements or the display of the information. Over the last 16 years,
Customers have improved the technical delivery and monitoring of data
and the ECDD offering responds to an industry need to administer these
new types of technical deliveries.
    Some Customers believe that an API or other distribution from a
display is a better controlled product than a data feed and as such
should not be subject to the same rates as a data feed. The offering of
a new pricing option for an ECDD would not only result in Cboe offering
lower fees for certain existing Customers, but will allow new Customers
to deliver ECDD to new clients, thereby increasing transparency of the
market.
    Accordingly, Cboe is establishing the ECDD Fee for Customers who
are seeking simplified market data administration and would like to
offer the Cboe Options Data Feeds to users that are using the Cboe
Options Data Feeds internally. The Cboe ECDD Fee is optional for firms
providing a display product containing the Cboe Options Data Feeds
where the Customer controls a display of the Cboe Data Feed or offer
APIs that power third party software display applications where the
Customer controls the entitlement but not the display of data since
these firms can choose to pay the data feed fees. The new Cboe ECDD Fee
is designed to allow Cboe Data Feed subscribers to redistribute data
via a terminal without paying a higher fee for an attached API. As a
result, it does not impact individual usage fees for the Cboe Options
Data Feeds or in any way increase the costs of any user of the Cboe
Options Data Feeds. For Customers wanting to use this same
functionality for other products, they would be able to do so by paying
the applicable Cboe Data Feed rates.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\12\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
recipients of Exchange data. The Exchange believes the proposed fees
are competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 11(A) of the Act \13\ in that it supports (i) fair
competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\14\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted
self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority
and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It
was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data
available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for
the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data
vendors who subscribe to the above data feeds will be subject to the
proposed fees. The above data feeds are distributed and purchased on a
voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data
distributors are required by any rule or regulation purchase this data
or to make this data available. Accordingly, distributors and users can
discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an
assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a wide
variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such
as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and
consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make any
proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing
alternatives to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
the above data feeds further ensure that the Exchange cannot set
unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when
vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the
Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that
provide similar market data products. For example, the above data feeds
provide investors with alternative market data and competes with
similar market data product currently offered by other exchanges. If
another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to distribute
its similar product than the Exchange charges for the above data feeds,
prospective users likely would not subscribe to, or would cease
subscribing to either market data product.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73816 (December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75200
(December 17, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-64) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish an
Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote and Trades Data Feed, Operative
December 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cboe believes that this proposal is in keeping with those
principles by promoting increased transparency through the offering of
a new pricing option for an ECDD, which would not only result in Cboe
offering lower fees for certain existing Customers, but will allow new
Customers to deliver ECDDs to new clients, thereby increasing
transparency of the market. Additionally, the proposal provides for
simplified market data administration and may be offered by Customers
to external users that are using the Cboe Options Data Feeds
internally. Cboe notes also that this filing proposes to distribute no
additional data elements and that the ECDD Fee is optional.
Accordingly, Customers and users can discontinue use at any time and
for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of
fees charged. Lastly, Cboe notes that the ECDD fee is based on Nasdaq's
Enhanced Display Solution fee.\16\ The proposed rates are also
equitable and reasonable because they are lower than that currently
charged by Nasdaq, which charges at a minimum rate of $4,000 per month
for up to 399 subscribers, $7,500 per month for up to 400-999
subscribers, and $15,000 per month for 1,000 or more subscribers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 8.
    \17\ See Nasdaq Rule 7026(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price ECDD is constrained by: (i) Competition
among exchanges that compete with each other in a variety of
dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated
data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and (iii) the
inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
    An exchange's ability to price its proprietary data feed products
is constrained by (1) the existence of actual competition for the sale
of such data, (2) the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and
(3) the existence of alternatives to proprietary data.
    The Existence of Actual Competition. The Exchange believes
competition provides an effective constraint on the market data fees
that the Exchange, through CDS, has the ability and the incentive to
charge. The Exchange has a compelling need to attract order flow from
market participants in order to maintain its share of trading volume.
This compelling need to attract order flow imposes significant pressure
on the Exchange to act reasonably in setting its fees for market data,
particularly given that the market participants that will pay such fees
often will be the same market participants from whom the Exchange must
attract order flow. These market participants include broker-dealers
that control the handling of a large volume of customer and proprietary
order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one exchange to
another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably high data

fees would risk alienating many of the same customers on whose orders
it depends for competitive survival. The Exchange currently competes
with fourteen options exchanges (including its affiliate, C2) for order
flow.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission has previously made a finding that the
options industry is subject to significant competitive forces. See
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59949 (May 20, 2009), 74
FR 25593 (May 28, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-97) [sic] (order approving
ISE's proposal to establish fees for a real-time depth of market
data offering).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through
market data vendors, the market data vendors themselves provide
additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they
control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors
impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example,
vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to
offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not
purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google,
impose price discipline by providing only data that they believe will
enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their
advertising revenue. Similarly, Customers will not offer ECDD unless
these products will help them maintain current users or attract new
ones. All of these operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data
products.
    Joint Product Nature of Exchange Platform. Transaction execution
and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is
both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market
data and trade executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products
with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform to post an
order will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order
can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality, and price
and distribution of their data products. The more trade executions a
platform does, the more valuable its market data products become. The
costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data
distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's broker-
dealer customers view the costs of transaction executions and market
data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange.
    Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products. Thus, because it
is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of both
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including 15 options self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets, as
well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various forms of
alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and
electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Competition among trading
platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each
platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different
platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable,
pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example,
some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge
relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data
products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for
accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of
paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering.
    The Existence of Alternatives. The Exchange is constrained in
pricing ECDD by the availability to market participants of alternatives
to purchasing these products. The Exchange must consider the extent to
which market participants would choose one or more alternatives instead
of purchasing the exchange's data. Other options exchanges can and have
produced their enhanced display products, and thus are sources of
potential competition for CDS. For example, as noted above, Nasdaq
offers an enhanced display product that will compete with ECDD. The
large number of SROs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary
data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing
discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, ATS, and BD is
currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many
currently do. In addition, the OPRA data feed is a significant
competitive alternative to the BBO and last sale data included in the
BBO and Book Depth Data Feeds.
    The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products,
including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the
Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably
discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these
alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data
product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any
particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

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 written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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 \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \20\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-026 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-026. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-026 and should be submitted on
or before May 1, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07242 Filed 4-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 212 (Thursday, November 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54923-54924]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23904]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9985-71-OA]

Request for Nominations for a Science Advisory Board Panel To
Review the EPA's Draft All-Ages Lead Model (AALM) Software and Model
Documents

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office requests public nominations of scientific
experts to form a Panel to review EPA's Draft All-Ages Lead Model
(AALM) software and model documents. The AALM is a tool for rapidly
evaluating the impact of possible sources of lead on blood and other
tissue levels in humans from birth to 90 years of age. The AALM
predicts lead concentration in body tissues and organs for a
hypothetical individual, based on a simulated lifetime of lead
exposure.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted by November 23, 2018 per the
instructions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding this notice and request for nominations
may contact Ms. Iris Goodman, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA
Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at [email protected].
    General information concerning the EPA SAB can be found at the EPA
SAB website at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SAB (42 U.S.C. 4365) is a chartered Federal
Advisory Committee that provides independent scientific and technical
peer review, advice, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on
the technical basis for EPA actions. As a Federal Advisory Committee,
the SAB conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. The SAB
AALM Review Panel will provide advice through the chartered SAB on
scientific and technical issues related to the current version of the
AALM model. The SAB and this Panel will comply with the provisions of
FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
    The U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) in
collaboration with Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) developed the AALM to provide a tool for rapidly evaluating the
impact of possible sources of lead on blood and other tissue levels in
humans from birth to 90 years of age. The AALM predicts lead
concentration in body tissues and organs for a hypothetical individual,
based on a simulated lifetime of lead exposure.
    The AALM is an outgrowth of the Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for Lead in Children. The IEUBK model was
designed to assess changes in blood lead of children over periods of no
less than a month. The AALM was developed to cover childhood and adult
lead exposures and allows users to assess the effects of intermittent
lead exposures of a day or more as well as stable exposure conditions.
    EPA's ORD and OCSPP coordinated efforts to advance lead biokinetic
modeling and produced the current version of the AALM software and
documentation. The SAB Staff Office is forming an expert panel under
the auspices of the Chartered SAB, the SAB AALM Review Panel, to
evaluate the new version of the AALM.
    Technical Contact for EPA's draft report: For information
concerning EPA's AALM software, and model documents, please contact Dr.
James Brown by email at [email protected] or phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Request for Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is seeking
nominations of nationally and internationally recognized scientists
with demonstrated expertise in one or more of the following areas: (1)
Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic modeling, particularly with
regard to lead, (2) physiological processes related to lead
distribution, mechanisms of transport, accumulation, concentrations at
the organ/tissue level, residence times (or other measures of potential
impact), and elimination of absorbed lead, (3) processes of the human
uptake and/or absorption of ingested lead, (4) lead exposure pathway
assessment, and/or (5) environmental or occupational lead exposure
analyses.
    Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested
person or organization may nominate qualified individuals in the areas
of expertise described above for possible service on the SAB AALM
Review Panel identified in this notice. Nominations should be submitted
in electronic format (preferred) following the instructions for
``Nominating Experts to Advisory Panels and Ad Hoc Committees Being
Formed,'' provided on the SAB website (see the ``Nomination of
Experts'' link under ``Current Activities'' at http://www.epa.gov/sab.
    To receive full consideration, EPA's SAB Staff Office requests
contact information about the person making the nomination; contact
information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of
expertise of the nominee; the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae;
sources of recent grant and/or contract support; and a biographical
sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational
background, research activities, and recent service on other national
advisory committees or national professional organizations.
    Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who
are unable to submit nominations through the SAB website, should
contact the DFO, Iris Goodman, as indicated above in this notice.
Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than
November 23, 2018. EPA values and welcomes diversity. All qualified
candidates are encouraged to apply regardless of sex, race, disability,
or ethnicity.
    The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations.
The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by
respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts
identified by the SAB Staff Office, will be posted in a List of
Candidates for the panel on the SAB website at http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Public comments on the List of Candidates will be accepted for 21 days.
The public will be requested to provide relevant information or other
documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in
evaluating candidates.
    For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a balanced review panel includes
candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant
scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced
by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of
experience. In forming the expert panel, the SAB Staff Office will
consider public comments on the Lists of Candidates, information
provided by the candidates themselves, and background information
independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to
be used for panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical
expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b)
availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial
conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a loss of
impartiality; (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and
advisory panels; and (f) for the panel as a whole, diversity of
expertise and scientific points of view.
    The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial
conflicts of interest will include a review of the ``Confidential
Financial Disclosure Form for Environmental Protection Agency Special
Government Employees'' (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form
allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory
conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which include
membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests
and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined
by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the
following URL address http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/Web/ethics?OpenDocument.

    Dated: October 9, 2018.
Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-23904 Filed 10-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P