[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47921-47925]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17300]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0893; Product Identifier 2018-SW-032-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-09-05 for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L,
AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. AD 2017-09-05 requires
repetitively checking screws in the emergency flotation gear. Since the
FAA issued AD 2017-09-05, Airbus Helicopters developed a modification
that addresses the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would retain the
requirements of AD 2017-09-05 but would require installing the
modification, which would be a terminating action for the repetitive
checks required by AD 2017-09-05. The actions of this proposed AD are
intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
21, 2020.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0893; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European
Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Safety Management Program
Manager, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one
copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically,
commenters should submit only one time.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments the FAA receives on or
before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments
filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so
without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in
light of the comments received.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Matt Fuller, Safety Management Program Manager,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, General
Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2017-09-05, Amendment 39-18867 (82 FR 21913, May
11, 2017) (``AD 2017-09-05''), for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C,
AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with
emergency flotation gear installed. AD 2017-09-05 requires repetitive
visual checks of the emergency flotation gear screws. Those actions are
intended to prevent the failure of a rear upper screw fitting on the
emergency flotation gear.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in failure
of the emergency flotation system and subsequent capsizing of the
helicopter.
    AD 2017-09-05 was prompted by EASA Emergency AD No. 2015-0239-E,
dated December 18, 2015 (EASA AD 2015-0239-E), issued by EASA, which is
the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA
advised that a screw ruptured on the rear upper fitting on the left-
hand (LH) emergency flotation gear of an AS332 helicopter. EASA stated
that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the
failure of an emergency flotation system when ditching and unstable
floating of the helicopter, possibly resulting in injury to the
occupants. The EASA AD consequently required repetitive inspections of
the lower attachment screws of rear upper fitting on the rear LH and
right-hand (RH) emergency flotation gears. EASA stated that the root
cause of the failure had not yet been identified.

Actions Since AD 2017-09-05 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2017-09-05, Airbus Helicopters identified
the root cause of the screw rupture as a tapering gap under the fitting
attachment screw heads creating excessive stress loads. Consequently,
EASA issued AD No. 2018-0090, dated April 20, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0090),
to supersede EASA AD 2015-0239-E. EASA AD 2018-0090 retains the
requirements in EASA AD 2015-0239-E and also requires the installation
of Airbus Helicopters modification (MOD) 0728456 as a terminating
action for the repetitive inspections required in EASA AD 2015-0239-E.
MOD 0728456 involves the installation of spherical washers and longer
screws on the rear upper fittings of the flotation gear to remove the
stress applied to the screw heads.

FAA's Determination

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

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD allows using tools for the inspection, while this
proposed AD requires checking by hand. The EASA AD requires contacting
Airbus Helicopters if a screw is missing or loose, while this proposed
AD would not. The EASA AD requires that repetitive inspections occur at
intervals not to exceed 15 hours time-in-service (TIS), while this
proposed AD requires the repetitive checks before each flight over
water.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. AS332-25.03.43, Revision 0, dated April 4, 2018, for Model AS332C,
AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters and for military
Model AS332B, AS332B1, AS332F1, AS332M, and AS332M1 helicopters. The
FAA also reviewed ASB No. EC225-25A207, Revision 0, dated April 4,
2018, for Model EC 225 LP helicopters. Both ASBs specify, within 12
months, installing MOD 0728456 by installing spherical leveling washers
and longer screws to attach the rear upper fittings of the LH and RH
emergency flotation gear. Airbus Helicopters specifies that helicopters
that have undergone MOD 0728456 are exempt from the ASB's requirements.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.01.06, Revision 0, dated December 18, 2015, for
Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters and for
military Model AS332B, AS332B1, AS332F1, AS332M, and AS332M1
helicopters, and EASB No. 05A047, Revision 0, dated December 18, 2015,
for Model EC225LP helicopters. This service information specifies
repetitively inspecting the lower screws of the rear upper fitting on
the rear LH and RH emergency floating gears for the presence of the
heads and stressing the screw heads using a tool to make sure that the
screw head does not move. If all screw heads are present, the service
information requires no further action. If at least one screw head is
missing or is loose, the service information specifies replacing the
two lower screws and the upper screw and informing Airbus Helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 15 hours TIS and thereafter
before each flight over water, visually checking each emergency
flotation gear LH and RH rear upper fitting for the presence of screw
heads and looseness. An owner/operator (pilot) may perform the required
visual check but must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of
the AD into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14
CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform
this inspection because it involves visually checking the rear upper
fittings of the LH and RH emergency flotation gears for the presence of
screw heads and twisting the screws by hand, which can be performed
equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This check is an exception to
our standard maintenance regulations. If any screws are loose or any
screw heads are missing, this proposed AD would require removing from
service the screws on each LH and RH side on the flotation gear rear
fitting and installing MOD 0728456, base washers and spherical washers.
This proposed AD would also require, within 300 hours TIS installing
MOD 0728456, as a terminating action for the repetitive checks.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 29 helicopters
of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the
following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. Labor costs
are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Checking the screws for looseness and a missing head would take
about 5 minutes, for an estimated cost of about $7 per helicopter and
$203 for the U.S. fleet.
    Performing the modification would take about 16 work-hours, and
parts would cost about $3,030 for total estimated cost of $4,390 per
helicopter and $127,310 for the U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under

that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-09-05, Amendment 39-18867
(82 FR 21913, May 11, 2017); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2018-0893; Product Identifier
2018-SW-032-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1,
AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with emergency
flotation gear installed, certificated in any category, except those
helicopters that have Airbus Helicopters Modification (MOD) 0728456
already installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a rear upper
screw fitting on the emergency flotation gear. This condition, if
not detected and corrected, could result in failure of the emergency
flotation system and subsequent capsizing of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-09-05, Amendment 39-188767 (82 FR
21913, May 11, 2017).

(d) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by September 21, 2020.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS), and before each
flight over water thereafter, visually check each emergency
flotation gear left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) rear upper fitting
to determine whether the heads of the lower screws are present.
Figure 1 to paragraph (f)(1) of this AD depicts where the lower
three screws (noted as B and E) are located. Check each screw for
looseness by determining whether it can be rotated by hand. These
actions may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at
least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the
aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) Sec. Sec.  43.9(a)(1)
through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be
maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU20.000

    (2) If a screw head is missing, or if a screw is loose, before
further flight over water, install MOD 0728456 by completing
paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.
    (3) Within 300 hours TIS, unless required before further flight
over water by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, install MOD 0728456 by
doing the following:

    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(3) of this AD: The installation of MOD
0728456 on the LH and RH sides is identical.

    (i) Remove external fitting (a) and remove from service screws
(c), (d) and (e), washers (f), and nuts (g) as shown in Figure 1,
Detail A of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
AS332-25.03.43, Revision 0, dated April 4, 2018 (ASB AS332-25.03-
43), or ASB No. EC225-25A207, Revision 0, dated April 4, 2018 (ASB
EC225-25A207), as applicable to your model helicopter.
    (ii) Install base washers (1) (structural side), spherical
washers (2) (screw side), and screws (3) and coat with sealing
compound (or similar) on the smooth surface of the nuts (5) as shown
in Figure 2 of ASB AS332-25.03-43 or ASB EC225-25A207, as applicable
to your model helicopter.
    (iii) Inspect each washer on the external fitting (a) for
contact with a weld as shown in Figure 2, Detail A of ASB AS332-
25.03-43 or ASB EC225-25A207, and inspect each washer on the
internal fitting for contact with the fitting radius.
    (A) If a washer on the external fitting makes contact with a
weld, perform a spotfacing to the diameter of 17mm (+ 0.1/+ 0.1)
with a cutter root radius of 0.5mm.
    (B) If a washer on the internal fitting falls in the radius of
the bracket, perform a spotfacing to the diameter of 17mm (+ 0.1/
+0.1) with a cutter root radius of 0.5mm.
    (iv) Torque each nut to 169-203 lbf.in (1.9-2.3 daN.m), and
apply sealing compound to outer edge of the LH rear upper fitting.
    (4) Completion of the requirements in paragraph in (f)(3) of
this AD constitute terminating action for the repetitive checks
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited for flights over water.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Safety
Management Program Manager, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB)
No. 05.01.06, and EASB No. 05A047, both Revision 0, and both dated
December 18, 2015, which are not incorporated by reference, contain
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701
N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
800-232-0323; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review this referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
No. 2018-0090, dated April 20, 2018. You may view the EASA AD on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: Code: 3212,
Emergency Flotation Section.

    Issued on August 3, 2020.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-17300 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38028]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Petition for Enforcement and Declaratory Order

    In the matter of: Hydrodynamics Inc., Montana Marginal Energy,
Inc., WINData, LLC, Hydrodynamics Inc., Montana Marginal Energy,
Inc., Two Dot Wind Energy, LLC, Mo Wind, LLC, Greenfield Wind LLC,
Fairfield Wind LLC, Greenfield Wind II, LLC, Coyote Wind LLC, EL13-
73-000, QF85-212-001, QF08-556-001, QF08-557-001, QF08-558-001,
QF08-559-001, QF08-598-001, QF03-36-001, QF03-127-001, QF04-87-001,
QF04-157-001, QF10-668-001, QF05-140-001, QF11-449-002, QF11-450-
003, QF13-425-001, QF13-421-001.

    Take notice that on June 17, 2013, pursuant to section 210(h)(2) of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 USC
824a-3(h) (2011) and Rule 207 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.207
(2012), Hydrodynamics, Inc., Montana Marginal Energy, Inc., and
WINData, LLC (collectively Petitioners) filed a petition for
enforcement and a petition for declaratory order, requesting the
Commission take enforcement action under section 210(h) of PURPA, or in
the alternative, issue a declaratory order finding that the Montana
Public Service Commission's (MPSC) rule A.R.M. 38.5.1902(5)(MPSC Rule),
and MPSC decisions interpreting the MPSC Rule, fail to implement PURPA
and the Commission's regulations insofar as the MPSC Rule eliminates
the rights of qualifying facilities (QFs) to create a legally
enforceable obligation and to choose how to sell their energy and
capacity.
    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 5 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 email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 2013.

    Dated: June 18, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15070 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26017-26018]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2010-E-0333 and FDA-2010-E-0334]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; KALBITOR

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for KALBITOR and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of applications to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human biological product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions along with three copies and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Beverly Friedman, Office of
Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6284, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the biological becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human biological product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human biological product will include all of the testing
phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human biological product
KALBITOR (Ecallantide). KALBITOR is indicated for treatment of acute
attacks of hereditary angioedema in patients 16 years of age and older.
Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received
patent term restoration applications for KALBITOR (U.S. Patent Nos.
5,795,685 and 7,276,480) from Dyax Corp., and the Patent and Trademark
Office requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents'
eligibility for patent term restoration. In

a letter dated February 17, 2011, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark
Office that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory
review period and that the approval of KALBITOR represented the first
permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the
Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's
regulatory review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
KALBITOR is 2,855 days. Of this time, 2,420 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 435 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: February 8, 2002. FDA has verified the applicant's claim
that the date the investigational new drug application became effective
was on February 8, 2002.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human biological product under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262): September 23, 2008. FDA has verified the
applicant's claim that the biologics license application (BLA) for
KALBITOR (BLA 125277/0) was initially submitted on September 23, 2008.
    3. The date the application was approved: December 1, 2009. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that BLA 125277/0 was approved on
December 1, 2009.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,645 days and
178 days of patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by July 2, 2012. Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period
by October 24, 2012. To meet its burden, the petition must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written petitions.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. However, if you
submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the
petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document.
    Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available
on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2012-10518 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 154 (Monday, August 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48241-48243]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17419]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ -OW-2003-0033; FRL--10013-32-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges Into
Marine Waters (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges into Marine Waters
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0138.12, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Control No. 2040-0088) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comment on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This
is a ``proposed extension of the Information Collection Request (ICR),
which is currently approved through April 30, 2021.'' An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2003-
0033, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
2003-0033.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this ICR. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the ICR process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a
delay in processing mail. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received
by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia Fox-Norse, Oceans, Wetlands

and Communities Division, Office of Water, (4504T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2003-0033,
at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the other
methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at
https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room
for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that
EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR.
The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i)
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Regulations implementing section 301(h) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) are found at 40 CFR part 125, subpart G. The CWA
section 301(h) program involves collecting information from two
sources: (1) the municipal wastewater treatment facility, commonly
called a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and (2) the state in
which the POTW is located. Municipalities had the opportunity to apply
for a waiver from secondary treatment requirements, but that
opportunity closed in December of 1982. A POTW holding a current waiver
or reapplying for a waiver provides application, monitoring, and toxic
control program information. The state provides information on its
determination whether the discharge under the proposed conditions of
the waiver ensures the protection of water quality, biological
habitats, and beneficial uses of receiving waters and whether the
discharge will result in additional treatment, pollution control, or
any other requirement for any other point or nonpoint sources. The
state also provides information to certify that the discharge will meet
all applicable state laws and that the state accepts all permit
conditions.
    There are four situations where information will be required under
the CWA section 301(h) program:
    (1) A POTW reapplying for a CWA section 301(h) waiver. As the
permits with section 301(h) waivers reach their expiration dates, EPA
must have updated information on the discharge to determine whether the
CWA section 301(h) criteria are still being met and whether the CWA
section 301(h) waiver should be reissued. Under 40 CFR 125.59(f), each
CWA section 301(h) permittee is required to submit an application for a
new section 301(h) modified permit within 180 days of the existing
permit's expiration date. 40 CFR 125.59(c) lists the information
required for a modified permit. The information that EPA needs to
determine whether the POTW's reapplication meets the CWA section 301(h)
criteria is outlined in the questionnaire attached to 40 CFR part 125,
subpart G.
    (2) Monitoring and toxic control program information: Once a waiver
has been granted, EPA must continue to assess whether the discharge is
meeting CWA section 301(h) criteria, and that the receiving water
quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of the receiving
waters are protected. To do this, EPA needs monitoring information
furnished by the permittee. According to 40 CFR 125.68(d), any permit
issued with a section 301(h) waiver must contain the monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR 125.63(b), (c), and (d) for biomonitoring, water
quality criteria and standards monitoring, and effluent monitoring,
respectively. In addition, 40 CFR 125.68(d) requires reporting at the
frequency specified in the monitoring program. In addition to
monitoring information, EPA needs information on the toxics control
program required by 40 CFR 125.66 to ensure that the permittee is
effectively minimizing industrial and nonindustrial toxic pollutant and
pesticide discharges into the treatment works.
    (3) Application revision information: 40 CFR 125.59(d) allows a
POTW to revise its application one time only, following a tentative
decision by EPA to deny the waiver request. In its application
revision, the POTW usually corrects deficiencies and changes proposed
treatment levels as well as outfall and diffuser locations. The
application revision is a voluntary submission for the applicant, and a
letter of intent to revise the application must be submitted within 45
days of EPA's tentative decision (40 CFR 125.59(f)). EPA needs this
information to evaluate revised applications to determine whether the
modified

discharge will ensure protection of water quality, biological habitats,
and beneficial uses of receiving waters.
    (4) State determination and state certification information: For
revised or renewal applications for CWA section 301(h) waivers, EPA
needs a state determination. The state determines whether all state
laws (including water quality standards) are satisfied. This helps
ensure that water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of
receiving waters are protected. Additionally, the state must determine
if the applicant's discharge will result in additional treatment,
pollution control, or any other requirement for any other point or
nonpoint sources. This process allows the state's views to be taken
into account when EPA reviews the CWA section 301(h) application and
develops permit conditions. For revised and renewed CWA section 301(h)
waiver applications, EPA also needs the CWA section 401(a)(1)
certification information to ensure that all state water quality laws
are met by any permit it issues with a CWA section 301(h) modification,
and the state accepts all the permit conditions. This information is
the means by which the state can exercise its authority to concur with
or deny a CWA section 301(h) decision made by the EPA regional office.
    Form Numbers: ``None.''
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are those municipalities that currently have CWA section
301(h) waivers from secondary treatment or have applied for a renewal
of a CWA section 301(h) waiver, and the states within which these
municipalities are located.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary, required to obtain
or retain a benefit.
    Estimated number of respondents: 34 (total).
    Frequency of response: From once every five years, to varies case-
by-case, depending on the category of information.
    Total estimated burden: 40,040 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $1.1 million (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: A decrease of hours in the total estimated
respondent burden is expected compared with the ICR currently approved
by OMB. EPA expects the numbers will decrease due to changes in
respondent universe, use of technology, etc.

John Goodin,
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
[FR Doc. 2020-17419 Filed 8-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains editorial corrections of previously published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule, and Notice documents. These corrections are prepared by the Office of the Federal Register. Agency prepared corrections are issued as signed documents and appear in the appropriate document categories elsewhere in the issue. Corrections Federal Register 43427 Vol. 68, No. 140 Tuesday, July 22, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OEI   2003   0026; FRL   7521   4]

Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable Amounts; Request for Comment on Renewal Information Collection Correction In notice document 03   16584 beginning on page 39071 in the issue of Tuesday, July 1, 2003, make the following correction: On page 39072, in the first column, under the heading DATES, in the third and fourth lines, `` July 31, 2003'' should read, `` September 2, 2003''.

[ FR Doc. C3   16584 Filed 7   21   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505   01   D DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [ Docket No. FAA   2003   15299; Airspace Docket No. 03   AWP   9]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Window Rock, AZ Correction In rule document 03   15526 beginning on page 36743 in the issue of Thursday, June 19, 2003 make the following correction:

§ 71.1 [ Corrected]

On page 36744, in § 71.1, in the first column, under the heading `` AWP AZ E5 Window Rock, AZ [ Revised] '' in the tenth line, `` VARTAC'' should read `` VORTAC''.

[ FR Doc. C3   15526 Filed 7   21   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505   01   D VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 04 Jul 21, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4734 Sfmt 4734 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22JYCX. SGM 22JYCX


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3991-3993]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02211]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0531; FRL-9989-38-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Ozone NAAQS Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of North
Carolina through the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ)
with a letter dated March 21, 2018. The SIP submittal includes changes
to the State's air quality rules for ozone to be consistent with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving these
provisions of the SIP revision because the State has demonstrated that
these changes are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and
federal regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective March 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0531. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Bell can also
be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review,
and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and
welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria--
the science upon which the standards are based--and the standards
themselves. EPA's regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found
at 40 CFR 50--National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards. In this rulemaking, EPA is approving revisions to the North
Carolina air quality rules addressing Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0405, Ozone,
in the North Carolina SIP.\1\ EPA notes that the cover letter was dated
March 21, 2018.\2\ Under Subchapter 2D, Section .0405 is amended by
updating air quality standards to reflect the most recent ozone NAAQS
as well as making textual modifications in the following manner:
Removing 0.075 parts per million (ppm) and replacing it with 0.070 ppm;
deleting ``8-hour'' and replacing it with ``eight-hour''; deleting the
word ``is'' and replacing it with ``shall be'' and later ``shall be
deemed''; and deleting Appendix P, which referenced the 2008 Ozone
Standard, and replacing it with Appendix U, which references the 2015
Ozone Standard. The SIP submission amending

the North Carolina regulations to incorporate the most recent ozone
NAAQS can be found in the docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the table of North Carolina regulations federally-
approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1770(c), 15A NCAC 02D is referred
to as ``Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements.''
    \2\ The submittal was received on April 4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on October 1,
2018, (83 FR 49330), EPA proposed to approve revisions to the North
Carolina air quality rules addressing Section .0405, Ozone, in the
North Carolina SIP. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before October
31, 2018. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed action. EPA
is now taking final action to approve the above-referenced revision.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of North
Carolina's NCDAQ Rule under Subchapter 2D, Section .0405, Ozone, state
effective January 1, 2018, which revises the ozone standard to be
consistent with the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action and approving the State of North
Carolina's March 21, 2018, SIP submission identified in section I
above, because these changes are consistent with the CAA and federal
regulations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this final action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 15, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 21, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. In Sec.  52.1770, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), revise the entry
for ``Section .0405'' under Subchapter 2D, Section .0400, to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   (1) EPA-Approved North Carolina Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          State citation               Title/subject      effective     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Section .0400 Ambient Air Quality Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section .0405....................  Ozone...............     1/1/2018  2/14/2019, [Insert    ....................
                                                                       citation of
                                                                       publication in
                                                                       Federal Register].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-02211 Filed 2-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6063-6064]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02060]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76997; File No. SR-ICC-2016-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise
the ICC Risk Management Framework

January 29, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 27, 2016, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. ICC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \4\
thereunder, so that the proposed rule change was effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    ICC proposes a revision to the ICC Risk Management Framework to
formalize the reporting line of the ICC Chief Risk Officer. This
revision does not require any change to the ICC Clearing Rules.

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

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

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

    ICC proposes revising its Risk Management Framework to address a
CFTC recommendation regarding ICC's governance arrangements by
including language regarding the ability of risk management personnel
to access the Board. Specifically, ICC added language regarding the
reporting line of ICC's Chief Risk Officer, namely that the ICC Chief
Risk Officer reports to the Chairperson of the ICC Risk Committee, who
is also a non-executive manager on the Board.\5\ ICC's policy has
always allowed for the ICC Chief Risk Officer to report to the
Chairperson of the ICC Risk Committee; such changes formalize this
policy in the ICC Risk Management Framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ICC Rule 505(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to protect investors
and the public interest and to comply with the provisions of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder. ICC believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular,
Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F),\7\ because ICC believes that the proposed rule
change will protect investors and the public interest, as the proposed
revision provides additional clarity regarding ICC's governance
arrangements, specifically the reporting line of the ICC Chief Risk
Officer. As such, the proposed rule change is designed to protect
investors and the public interest within the meaning of Section
17(A)(b)(3)(F) \8\ of the Act. In addition, the proposed revision is
consistent with the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22,\9\ as the
revision provides further clarify [sic] and transparency regarding
ICC's governance arrangements, in accordance with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8).\10\ Further, through this Risk Management Framework
revision, ICC is complying with a directive from the CFTC regarding
ICC's governance arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. ICC is formalizing the
reporting line of its Chief Risk Officer and not making any substantive
changes to its overall risk management framework. Therefore, ICC does
not believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition
that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing.
According to ICC, the proposed rule change does not present any novel
or controversial issues. Rather, ICC is merely formalizing its policy
of allowing the ICC's Chief Risk Officer to report to the Chairperson
of the ICC Risk Committee. Accordingly, the Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2016-001 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-ICC-2016-001. 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 ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2016-001
and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02060 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12627-12630]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05794]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82891; File No. SR-BOX-2017-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Rule
7600(i) To Allow Split-Price Transactions on the BOX Trading Floor

March 16, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On November 30, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``BOX'') 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 adopt proposed Rule 7600(i) to allow split-
price transactions on the BOX Trading Floor. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 19,
2017.\3\ On January 31, 2018, the Commission extended the time period
within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change to March 19, 2018.\4\ The Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal on March 7, 2018.\5\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change from interested persons and is
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82315 (December 13,
2017), 82 FR 60256 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82607 (January 31,
2018), 83 FR 5286 (February 6, 2018).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1 the Exchange: (1) Further described how
split-price priority transactions would execute if there is Public
Customer interest on the BOX Book; (2) provided additional
justification for the proposal being consistent with the Act; (3)
provided additional examples of how split-price priority
transactions will be handled and reported by the Exchange; and (4)
proposed additional rule text to describe how the system will
determine the allocation of a split-price QOO Order in situations
where the allocation between two increments results in a fractional
amount of contracts and provided justification for this change.
Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-box-2017-36/box201736-3206059-161998.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1 [bds6]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a more detailed description of the proposed rule change,
see Notice, supra note 3; Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX proposes to adopt Rule 7600(i), which would establish priority
principles for split-price transactions occurring in open-outcry on the
Trading Floor.\7\ Under the proposed rule, if an order or offer (bid)
for any number of contracts of a series is represented to the trading
crowd, a Floor Participant \8\ that buys (sells) one or more contracts
of that order or offer (bid) at one price would have priority over all
other orders and quotes, except Public Customer Orders \9\ resting in
the BOX Book,\10\ to buy (sell) up to the same number of contracts of
those remaining from the same order or offer (bid) at the next lower
(higher) price.\11\ For orders or offers (bids) of 100 or more
contracts,\12\ a Floor Participant that buys (sells) 50 or more of the
contracts of that order or offer (bid) at a particular price will have
priority over all other orders and quotes to buy (sell) up to the same
number of contracts of those remaining from the same order or offer
(bid) at the next lower (higher) price.\13\ If the bids or offers of
two or more Floor Participants are both entitled to split-price
priority, priority would be afforded (to the extent practicable) on a
pro-rata basis.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 100(a)(67) (defining Trading Floor).
    \8\ The term ``Floor Participant'' includes Floor Brokers as
defined in Rule 7540 and Floor Market Makers as defined in Rule
8510(b). See Rule 100(a)(26).
    \9\ The term ``Public Customer Order'' means an order for the
account of a Public Customer, which is defined in the BOX Rules as a
person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. See Rules
100(a)(52) and (53).
    \10\ The term ``Central Order Book'' or ``BOX Book'' means the
electronic book of orders on each single option series maintained by
the BOX Trading Host. See Rule 100(a)(10).
    \11\ See proposed Rule 7600(i)(1).
    \12\ Under the proposed rule, the Exchange would be permitted to
increase the minimum qualifying size of 100 contracts. Any such
changes would be announced to Participants via Regulatory Circular.
See proposed Rule 7600(i)(2).
    \13\ See proposed Rule 7600(i)(2). See also Notice supra, note
3, at 60257 (providing an example of a split-price transaction for
100 contracts).
    \14\ See proposed Rule 7600(i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, in order to execute a split-price
transaction, a Floor Broker would submit a Qualified Open Outcry
(``QOO'') Order to the system in the same manner as done today on the
Trading Floor, except that the QOO Order would be entered at a sub-
minimum trading increment.\15\

After receiving the QOO Order, the system would split the QOO Order
into two transactions. The transactions would be separated by one tick
that, when combined, would yield a net price equal to the original
price entered by the Floor Broker.\16\ If this calculation results in a
fractional contract amount, the number of contracts allocated will be
rounded to the advantage of the initiating side.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, a Floor Broker would be permitted to enter a
QOO Order at a price of $1.03 when the minimum trading increment for
the series is $0.05. See Notice, supra, note 3, at 60256, n.5. Split
price QOO Orders can be submitted with up to three decimal places
(e.g., $1.025). See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5, at 6 n.6.
    \16\ For example, if a Floor Broker submitted a split price QOO
Order with a price of $1.025 for 100 contracts in a series with a
minimum trading increment of $0.05, the system would split the QOO
Order into two transactions; a transaction for the purchase of 50
contracts at $1.00 and a transaction for the purchase of 50
contracts at $1.05. See Notice supra, note 3, at 60256.
    \17\ See proposed Rule IM-7600-7; Amendment No. 1, supra note 5,
at 6. For example, if a Floor Broker submitted a split price QOO
Order with a price of $1.025 for 301 contracts in a series with a
minimum trading increment of $0.05, 150.5 contracts would need to be
executed at $1.00 and 150.5 contracts would need to be executed at
$1.05 to achieve a net price of $1.025. If the initiating side of
such an order were a sell order, the system would instead split the
order into 151 contracts at $1.05 and 150 at $1.00, resulting in a
net execution price of $1.0251, which is a better price for the
initiating sell order. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the process by which a Floor Broker
brings an order to the Trading Floor would be the same for a split-
price QOO Order as it is for all other QOO Orders.\18\ Specifically, a
Floor Broker would be permitted to bring a single-sided order (i.e.,
the initiating side of a QOO Order) to the Trading Floor in order to
seek liquidity (i.e., the contra-side of a QOO Order). In such case,
the Floor Broker would announce the single-sided order to the trading
crowd in an attempt to find contra-side liquidity. If Floor
Participants respond with sufficient liquidity to satisfy the single-
sided order, the Floor Broker would be able to submit a two-sided QOO
Order to the system as required by Rule 7600.\19\ If, however, a Floor
Participant responds by providing liquidity at two separate prices,
then the Floor Broker would submit the QOO Order at a sub-minimum
trading increment which would result in a split-price transaction.\20\
For example, according to the Exchange, a Floor Market Maker might be
willing to buy half of the contracts at one price provided that the
Floor Market Maker could then buy the other half at one tick lower.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange notes that the Floor Broker would be permitted
to utilize the book sweep size, as provided in Rule 7600(h), when
entering a split-price QOO Order. See Notice, supra note 3, at 60257
and 60258 (providing an example of a split-price QOO Order and book
sweep size). According to the Exchange, this may result in the
contra-side of a split price order receiving a net price that is
worse than the price at which the QOO Order was originally entered.
See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5, at 5 (providing an example of the
execution of a split-price transaction that executes in part against
a Public Customer Order on the BOX Book). A split-price QOO Order
will be rejected if the initiating side of the transaction would
trade through a resting Public Customer Order because the initiating
side of a QOO Order must be filled in its entirety pursuant to Rule
7600(a)(1). See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5, at 5 n.4.
    \19\ See Rule 7600(a).
    \20\ The Exchange notes that nothing would prevent a Floor
Participant from responding for the full amount of the order at a
better price for the Floor Broker's customer. For example, if a
Floor Broker announced an order for a customer looking to buy at
$0.30 and $0.35, a Floor Participant could respond to sell the full
quantity at $0.30 instead of selling part at $0.30 and part at
$0.35. See Notice, supra note 3, at 60256 n.7.
    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, the Floor Broker may have both sides of the QOO
Order (i.e., the initiating side and the contra-side) when the order is
brought to the Trading Floor and the Floor Broker may wish to execute
the order at two separate prices in an attempt to have a net execution
price with a sub-minimum trading increment. In such a situation, under
the proposed rule, the Floor Broker would announce the QOO Order to the
trading crowd and state that they are attempting to execute the QOO
Order as a split-price transaction. Floor Participants then would have
an opportunity to respond.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id. (providing an example of the execution of a single-
sided order as a split-price transaction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of the proposed split-price priority rule would be subject
to certain conditions. First, split-price priority would be available
only for open outcry transactions (i.e., QOO Orders) and would not
apply to Complex Orders.\23\ Second, a Floor Participant would be
required to make its bid (offer) at the next lower (higher) price for
the second (or later) transaction at the same time as the first bid
(offer) or promptly following the announcement of the first (or
earlier) transaction.\24\ Third, the second (or later) purchase (sale)
must represent the opposite side of a transaction with the same order
or offer (bid) as the first (or earlier) purchase (sale).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Rule 7600(4)(i).
    \24\ See proposed Rule 7600(4)(ii).
    \25\ See proposed Rule 7600(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes an exception to the availability of
split-price priority. Specifically, if the width of the quote for a
series is the minimum increment for that series (e.g., $1.00-$1.05 for
a series with a minimum increment of $0.05, or $1.00-$1.01 for a series
with a minimum increment of $0.01), and both the bid and offer
represent Public Customer Orders resting in the BOX Book, split-price
priority pursuant to proposed Rule 7600(i) would not available to Floor
Participants until the Public Customer Order(s) resting in the BOX Book
on either side of the market trades.\26\ The Exchange represents that
this exception is consistent with the Exchange's allocation and
priority rules, which provide for Public Customer Orders to have
priority at the best price in open outcry over QOO Orders.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See proposed Rule 7600(5).
    \27\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60257 (providing examples of
the application of the exception). See also Rules 7600(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address potential concerns regarding Section 11(a) of the
Act,\28\ the Exchange is proposing to adopt Rule IM-7600-6.\29\
Proposed Rule IM-7600-6 would make clear that Floor Brokers may avail
themselves of the split-price priority rule, but must ensure compliance
with Section 11(a). Specifically, proposed Rule IM-7600-6 would require
a Floor Broker who bids (offers) on behalf of a non-Market-Maker BOX
Participant broker-dealer (``BOX Participant BD'') to ensure that the
BOX Participant BD qualifies for an exemption from Section 11(a)(1) of
the Exchange Act or the transaction satisfies the requirements of
Exchange Act Rule 11a2-2(T).\30\ According to the Exchange, pursuant to
existing Rule IM-7600-5, a Participant may not utilize the Trading
Floor to effect any transaction for its own account, the account of an
associated person, or an account with respect to which it or an
associated person thereof exercises investment discretion by relying on
an exemption under Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Exchange Act (the ``G
Exemption'').\31\ Therefore, according to the Exchange, a Floor Broker
bidding or offering on behalf of a BOX Participant must rely on
exemptions from Section 11(a) other than the G Exemption.\32\ Otherwise
a Floor Broker would not be permitted to execute a split-price
transaction on the Trading Floor. The Exchange notes that the proposed
rule change would not limit in any way the obligation of a BOX
Participant, while acting as a Floor

Broker or otherwise, to comply with Section 11(a) or the rules
thereunder.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)
    \29\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60258. See also proposed Rule
IM-7600-6.
    \30\ See proposed Rule IM-7600-6.
    \31\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60258. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 80720 (May 18, 2017), 82 FR 23657 (May 23,
2017) (Notice of Amendment 2 to SR-BOX-2016-48) at 23674 and 23681.
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81292 (August 2, 2017),
82 FR 37144 (August 8, 2017) (Order Approving SR-BOX-2016-48).
    \32\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60258.
    \33\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has represented that it will provide at least two
weeks' notice to Participants via Circular prior to the launch of
proposed Rule 7600(i).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Exchange stated that it anticipates launching its
split-price priority rule in the first quarter of 2018. See Notice,
supra note 3, at 60258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\36\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ In approving this proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, the Commission notes that it 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. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would encourage
Floor Participants to quote more aggressively, which in turn could lead
to better-priced executions. In addition, the Exchange states that it
believes that the proposal will induce Floor Participants to bid
(offer) at better prices for an order or offer that may require
execution at multiple prices (such as a large-size order), which would
result in a better average price for the originating Floor Participant
(or its customer).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 60258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed change is substantively
identical to the rules of another options exchange \38\ and therefore,
the Commission does not believe that the adoption of proposed Rule
7600(i) raises any new regulatory issues. The Commission believes that
the proposed rule change may encourage more aggressive quoting by Floor
Participants in competition for large-sized orders, which, in turn,
could lead to better-priced executions.\39\ The Commission notes that
the proposed rule change includes language that clarifies that Floor
Brokers who avail themselves of the split-price priority rule are
obligated to ensure compliance with Section 11(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Cboe Exchange Inc. Rule 6.47. See also Nasdaq Phlx LLC
Rule 1014(g)(i)(B), NYSE Arca Inc. Rule 6.75-O(h) and NYSE American
LLC Rule 963NY(f).
    \39\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77823 (May 12,
2016), 81 FR 31279 (May 18, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-034) (approving
modifications to Cboe Option's split-price priority rule and
adopting an exception when the width of a series quote is at the
minimum increment width which is identical to BOX's proposed
exception).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \40\ and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2017-36 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-36. 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-BOX-2017-36 and should be submitted on
or before [date 21 days from publication in the Federal Register].

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
Federal Register. As discussed above, Amendment No. 1 clarifies how the
proposed split-price priority rules would operate in conjunction with
BOX's book sweep size mechanism, and its potential impact to the net
execution price of the contra-side of a split-price QOO Order. In
addition, Amendment No. 1 proposes additional rule text to describe how
the system will determine split-price priority in situations where the
allocation between two increments results in a fractional number of
contracts.
    The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 provides additional
specificity regarding the operation of BOX's new priority principles
for split-priced transactions in open-outcry on the Trading Floor. The
Commission notes that the proposed new rule text and additional
description and analysis set forth in Amendment 1 do not raise any
novel regulatory issues and are designed to add clarity to the
proposal.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\41\ to approve the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\42\ that the

proposed rule change (SR-BOX-2017-36), as modified by Amendment No. 1,
be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05794 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45423-45424]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2348-038; 2373-011; 2446-050]

Midwest Hydro, LLC, STS Hydropower, Ltd.; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To
Intervene

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Extension of License Term.
    b. Project Nos.: P-2348-038, P-2373-011, and P-2446-050.
    c. Date Filed: June 27, 2018.
    d. Licensees: Midwest Hydro, LLC and STS Hydropower, Ltd.
    e. Names and Locations of Projects: Beloit Hydroelectric Project
No. 2348, located on the Rock River, in Rock County, Wisconsin. Rockton
Hydroelectric Project No. 2373, located on the Rock River, in Winnebago
County, Illinois. Dixon Hydroelectric Project No. 2446, located on the
Rock River, in Lee County, Illinois.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    g. Licensee Contact Information: Mr. Michael Scarzello, Regulatory
Director, Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, 116 North State Street, P.O.
Box 167, Neshkoro, Wisconsin 54960-0167, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected].
    h. FERC Contact: Mr. Ashish Desai,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    i. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests,
is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions
to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, 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 at
[email protected], (866)

208-3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). 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 numbers P-2348-038, P-
2373-011, and P-2446-050.
    j. Description of Proceeding: Midwest Hydro, LLC, licensee for the
Beloit and Rockton projects, and STS Hydropower, Ltd., licensee for the
Dixon Project request that the Commission extend the term of the
licenses to synchronize license expiration with the nearby Central
Project No. 2347, also located on the Rock River, in Rock County
Wisconsin and licensed to Midwest Hydro, LLC. The license for the
Central Project expires on August 31, 2024 and the licensees request
eight-month extensions for the Dixon and Rockton projects, currently
set to expire on December 31, 2023, and a three-month extension of the
license term for the Beloit Project, which expires on May 31, 2024. The
licensees requests the license term extensions to coordinate and
streamline relicensing efforts for the four projects and perform a more
comprehensive analysis of the resources involved.
    k. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
Docket number (P-2348-038, P-2373-011, or P-2446-050) excluding the
last three digits in the docket number field to access the notice. 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, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected]. For TTY, call
(202) 502-8659.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO
INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests should relate to the license term
extension requests. Agencies may obtain copies of the application
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant
specified in the particular application. If an intervener files
comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an
issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: August 31, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19407 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P