[Federal Register: January 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2129-2130]
[DOCID:fr14ja10-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12635-001]

Moriah Hydro Corporation; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

January 6, 2010.
    On November 2, 2009, Moriah Hydro Corporation filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, for a successive
preliminary permit to study the feasibility of the Mineville Pumped
Storage Project, to be located in the existing Old Bed, New Bed, and
Harmony Mines, within the town of Moriah in Essex County, New York. The
mines are owned by the X-Earth Corporation of Elizabethtown, New York,
Rhodia Corporation of Cranbury, New Jersey, and the Town of Moriah, New
York.
    The proposed pumped storage project would consist of the following:
(1) An upper reservoir formed underground in Harmony Mine between the
existing +400 and +1,000 foot elevation levels of the mine, with a
surface area of about 50 acres and volume of approximately 2,400 acre-
feet at normal water surface elevation of +1,000 feet Project Datum;
(2) a lower reservoir formed underground in Harmony Mine between the
existing -1,650 and -1,050 elevation levels of the mine, with a surface
area of about 50 acres and volume of approximately 2,400 acre-feet at
normal water surface elevation of +1,050 feet Project Datum; (3) two
identical 2,500-foot-long, 120-inch-diameter vertical bored drop
shafts; (4) a proposed concrete powerhouse 70-feet-wide by 280-feet-
long by 40-feet-high, containing approximately 100 pump/turbine/
generator units having a total installed capacity of 270 megawatts
(MW); (5) a proposed underground, 1-mile-long, 115 kilovolt (kV)
transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
    The development would have an annual generation of 650 gigawatt-
hours (GWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. James A. Besha, P.E., Moriah Hydro
Corporation c/o Albany Engineering Corporation, 5 Washington Square,
Albany, NY 12205,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene, competing applications
(without notice of intent), or notices of intent to file competing
applications: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. Comments,
motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may
be electronically filed via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be filed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filling-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``e-library'' link of the Commission's Web site at

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
(P-12635-001) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-524 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 43250]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17313]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form N-CSR. SEC File No. 270-512, OMB Control No. 3235-0570

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331 and 274.128) is a combined reporting
form used by registered management investment companies (``funds'') to
file certified shareholder reports under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange
Act''). Specifically, Form N-CSR is to be used for reports under
section 30(b)(2) of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-29(b)(2))
and section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) and
78o(d)), filed pursuant to rule 30b2-1(a) under the Investment Company
Act (17 CFR 270.30b2-1(a)). Reports on Form N CSR are to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') no later than
10 days after the transmission to stockholders of any report that is
required to be transmitted to stockholders under rule 30e-1 under the
Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.30e-1).
    Form N-CSR is filed semi-annually, and the Commission estimates
that there are 3,288 respondents. The Commission also estimates that
the average number of portfolios referenced in each filing is 3.75. The
Commission further estimates that the hour burden for preparing and
filing a report on Form N-CSR is 7.21 hours per portfolio. Given that
filings on Form N-CSR are filed semi-annually, filings on Form N-CSR
require 14.42 hours per portfolio each year. The total annual hour
burden for Form N-CSR, therefore, is estimated to be 177,799 hours. The
estimated total annual cost burden to respondents for outside
professionals associated with the collection of data relating to Form
N-CSR is $3,189,771.
    The collection of information under Form N-CSR is mandatory.
Responses to the collection of information will not be kept
confidential. 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 control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 15, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17313 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42541-42546]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17573]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67439; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Pricing in Select Symbols and Multiply-Listed Options

July 13, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on July 2, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Select Symbols \3\ and fees in
Section I and amend a fee and adopt a Customer Rebate Program in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange also proposes to make
a minor amendment to Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Select Symbols are subject to the fees and rebates in
Section I of the Pricing Schedule. See Section I for a complete list
of Select Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make various amendments to Section I of
the Pricing Schedule entitled ``Fees and Rebates for Adding and
Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols.'' The Exchange proposes to delete
the following Select Symbols from the list of symbols subject to the
fees and rebates in Section I: Barrick Gold Corporation (``ABX''), eBay
Inc. (``EBAY''), Corning Inc. (``GLW''), Procter & Gamble Co. (``PG''),
Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, Inc. (``POT''), Starbucks Corporation
(``SBUX''), SanDisk Corp. (``SNDK'') and United Continental Holdings,
Inc. (``UAL'') (collectively ``Proposed Deleted Symbols''). These
Proposed Deleted Symbols would be subject to the rebates and fees in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule entitled ``Multiply Listed Options
Fees.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section II includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs,
indexes and HOLDRs which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the title of Section I, Part A from
``Single contra-side'' to ``Simple Order.'' The Exchange believes this
amendment better describes the type of orders subject to the fees and
rebates in Section I, Part A of the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange also
proposes to increase the Specialist \5\ and Market Maker \6\ Fees for
Removing Liquidity in Section I, Part A from $0.38 per contract to
$0.39 per contract. The Exchange believes that the increased fees
better align the Fees for Removing Liquidity by assessing Customers the
same fee as a Specialist and Market Maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a). An options Specialist
includes a Remote Specialist which is a defined as an options
specialist in one or more classes that does not have a physical
presence on an Exchange floor and is approved by the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 501.
    \6\ For purposes of the Pricing Schedule, the term ``Market
Maker'' is utilized to describe fees and rebates applicable to ROTs,
SQTs and RSQTs. The term ``ROT, SQT and RSQT'' applies to
transactions for the accounts of Registered Option Traders
(``ROTs''), Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs''), and Remote Streaming
Quote Traders (``RSQTs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Electronic Firm Fee Discount
which

today provides that Firm electronic Options Transaction Charges in
Penny Pilot \7\ and non-Penny Pilot Options will be reduced to $0.11
per contract for a given month provided the Firm has volume greater
than 750,000 electronically-delivered contracts in a month. The
Exchange proposes to reduce the amount of the discount by increasing
the Options Transaction Charge to $0.13 per contract from $0.11 per
contract. While the Exchange desires to continue to incentivize Firms
to increase the volume executed on Phlx, the Exchange believes that
reducing the Options Transactions Charges to $0.13 per contract is
still a significant incentive for Firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007 and in
October 2009 was expanded and extended through December 31, 2010.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55153 (January 23, 2007),
72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007)(SR-Phlx-2006-74)(notice of filing and
approval order establishing Penny Pilot); 60873 (October 23, 2009),
74 FR 56675 (November 2, 2009)(SR-Phlx-2009-91)(notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny Pilot); 60966
(November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59331 (November 17, 2009)(SR-Phlx-2009-
94)(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five
classes to Penny Pilot); 61454 (February 1, 2010), 75 FR 6233
(February 8, 2010)(SR-Phlx-2010-12)(notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62028
(May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25890 (May 10, 2010)(SR-Phlx-2010-65)(notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to
Penny Pilot); 62616 (July 30, 2010), 75 FR 47664 (August 6,
2010)(SR-Phlx-2010-103)(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 63395 (November 30,
2010), 75 FR 76062 (December 7, 2010)(SR-Phlx-2010-167)(notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot); 65976
(December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79247 (December 21, 2011)(SR-Phlx-2011-
172)(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness extending the
Penny Pilot); and (SR-Phlx-2012-86) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot). See also Exchange Rule
1034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to cap the Qualified Contingent Cross
Rebate (``QCC Rebate'') to be paid in a given month at $275,000. The
QCC Rebate is applicable to both electronic QCC Orders (``eQCC'') \8\
and Floor QCC Orders,\9\ except where the transaction is either: (i)
Customer-to-Customer; or (ii) a dividend,\10\ merger \11\ or short
stock interest strategy \12\ and executions subject to the Reversal and
Conversion Cap \13\ (as defined in Section II). QCC Transaction Fees
apply to Sections I and II of the Pricing Schedule and are subject to
the Monthly Firm Fee Cap \14\ and the Monthly Market Maker Cap.\15\ The
Exchange believes that the proposed cap, while limiting the amount of
rebate a market participant may obtain in extremely high industry
volume months, will not hinder participants in continuing to execute
QCC Orders to obtain the highest possible rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least
1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') and be rejected if a
Customer order is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. A
QCC Order shall only be submitted electronically from off the floor
to the PHLX XL II System. See Rule 1080(o). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 64249 (April 7, 2011), 76 FR 20773 (April
13, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-47) (a rule change to establish a QCC Order
to facilitate the execution of stock/option Qualified Contingent
Trades (``QCTs'') that satisfy the requirements of the trade through
exemption in connection with Rule 611(d) of the Regulation NMS).
    \9\ A Floor QCC Order must: (i) be for at least 1,000 contracts,
(ii) meet the six requirements of Rule 1080(o)(3) which are modeled
on the QCT Exemption, (iii) be executed at a price at or between the
NBBO; and (iv) be rejected if a Customer order is resting on the
Exchange book at the same price. In order to satisfy the 1,000-
contract requirement, a Floor QCC Order must be for 1,000 contracts
and could not be, for example, two 500-contract orders or two 500-
contract legs. See Rule 1064(e). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64688 (June 16, 2011), 76 FR 36606 (June 22, 2011) (SR-
Phlx-2011-56).
    \10\ A dividend strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed the
first business day prior to the date on which the underlying stock
goes ex-dividend. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \11\ A merger strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise
of options of the same class and expiration date, executed the first
business day prior to the date on which shareholders of record are
required to elect their respective form of consideration, i.e., cash
or stock. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \12\ A short stock interest strategy is defined as transactions
done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage involving the
purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same
class. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \13\ Specialist, Market Maker, Professional, Firm and Broker-
Dealer options transaction fees in Multiply Listed Options are
capped at $500 per day for reversal and conversion strategies
executed on the same trading day in the same options class when such
members are trading in their own proprietary accounts.
    \14\ Firms are subject to a maximum fee of $75,000 (''Monthly
Firm Fee Cap''). Firm non-electronic equity option transaction fees
and QCC Transaction Fees in the aggregate, for one billing month,
may not exceed the Monthly Firm Fee Cap per member organization when
such members are trading in their own proprietary account. All
dividend, merger, short stock interest and reversal and conversion
strategy executions are excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. The
Firm equity options transaction fees are waived for members
executing facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064 when
such members are trading in their own proprietary account.
    \15\ Specialists and Market Makers are currently subject to a
Monthly Market Maker Cap of $550,000 for equity option transaction
fees and QCC Transaction Fees. The trading activity of separate
Specialist and Market Maker member organizations will be aggregated
in calculating the Monthly Market Maker Cap if there is at least 75%
common ownership between the member organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the $0.07 per contract rebate
for members executing electronically-delivered Customer Orders when
that member transacts an average daily volume of 50,000 Customer
contracts or greater in a given month. Also, the additional rebate of
$0.03 per contract, which is paid to members for electronically-
delivered Customer orders that qualified for the $0.07 rebate and added
liquidity in a Simple Order in a non-Penny Pilot Option or added or
removed liquidity (including auctions) in a Complex Order in a Penny
Pilot Option, would be eliminated.\16\ The Exchange proposes to instead
offer a more detailed Customer Rebate Program as described below, which
will replace the rebates that are being eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ PIXL Orders and QCC Orders are not eligible for the rebate
and are excluded from the calculation of the average daily volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a revised rebate program entitled
``Customer Rebate Program'' for Multiply Listed Options,\17\ which has
some similarities to the rebates that are being eliminated in Section
II of the Pricing Schedule. The proposed Customer Rebate Program will
consist of three tiers. The first tier (``Tier 1'') (0 to 49,999
contracts in a month) will not earn any rebates. This is the case
today. The second tier (``Tier 2'') (50,000 to 99,999 contracts in a
month) will remain the same as the current rebate offered today that is
being eliminated.\18\ The third tier (``Tier 3'') (over 100,000
contracts in a month) will introduce higher rebates as an additional
incentive for member organizations to route Customer order flow to the
Exchange for execution, with the exception of Category C, which will
remain the same as it is today ($0.10 per contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs,
indexes and HOLDRS which are Multiply Listed and excludes SOX, HGX
and OSX and the Select Symbols.
    \18\ The Exchange currently offers a rebate of $0.07 per
contract, which is paid to members executing electronically-
delivered Customer Orders when the member transacts an average daily
volume of 50,000 Customer contracts or greater in a given month.
Further, an additional rebate of $0.03 per contract is paid to
members for those electronically-delivered Customer orders that:
qualified for the $0.07 rebate; and added liquidity in a Simple
Order in a non-Penny Pilot Option or added or removed liquidity
(including auctions) in a Complex Order in a Penny Pilot Option.
This rebate scheme is being eliminated and replaced with the
Customer Rebate Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each tier or ``Threshold'' would be calculated by totaling all
applicable Multiply-Listed electronically-delivered Customer Orders,
except electronic Qualified Contingent Cross Orders (eQCC Orders). PIXL
orders are currently excluded from the Threshold computations for the
rebates that exist today and are being eliminated; this differs for the
Customer Rebate Program. The rebates would be paid for all

electronically delivered Customer orders in a given month as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Rebate per contract categories
                 Average daily volume threshold                  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                    Category A      Category B      Category C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 49,999 contracts in a month................................           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
50,000 to 99,999 contracts in a month...........................            0.07            0.10            0.10
Over 100,000 contracts in a month...............................            0.09            0.12            0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Category A rebates would be paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot Options,
Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options that removed liquidity and
Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options. Category B rebates would be
paid to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex
Orders in Penny Pilot Options and Category C rebates would be paid to
members executing electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in
Non-Penny Pilot Options that added liquidity. The Threshold would be
calculated by totaling Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options that
are electronically-delivered, except electronic QCC Orders (eQCC
Orders) as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) (``Threshold Volume'').
Rebates will be paid on Threshold Volume in a given month, excluding
electronically-delivered Customer volume associated with PIXL.\19\ The
Exchange believes that this proposed Customer Rebate Program will
attract additional Customer order flow to the Exchange for the benefit
of all market participants through increased liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ PIXL is the Exchange's price improvement mechanism known as
Price Improvement XL or (PIXL \SM\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to increase the current fee
applicable to Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side
of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have
reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap. Today, the Exchange assesses
Specialists and Market Makers a $0.07 per contract fee, in both Select
Symbols and Multiply Listed Symbols (Sections I and II) when contra to
an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and when the
Monthly Market Maker Cap is exceeded. PIXL Orders are excluded today.
This would remain the same except the Exchange proposes to increase
this fee from $0.07 to $0.12 per contract to assist in recouping costs
associated with providing a Customer Rebate Program. The Exchange
believes that this fee increase would enable the Exchange to offer the
Customer Rebate Program as proposed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \20\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \21\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Select Symbols
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to remove the Proposed
Deleted Symbols from its list of Select Symbols to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that applying the
fees in Section II of the Pricing Schedule to the Proposed Deleted
Symbols, including the opportunity to receive payment for order flow,
will continue to attract order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to amend its list of Select Symbols to remove the
Proposed Deleted Symbols because the list of Select Symbols would apply
uniformly to all categories of participants in the same manner. All
market participants who trade the Select Symbols would be subject to
the rebates and fees in Section I of the Pricing Schedule, which would
not include the Proposed Deleted Symbols. Also, all market participants
would be uniformly subject to the fees and Customer Rebate Program in
Section II, which would include the Proposed Deleted Symbols.
Section I--Fee Amendments
    The Exchange believes its proposal to amend the Specialist and
Market Maker Fees for Removing Liquidity in Section I, Part A from
$0.38 per contract to $0.39 per contract is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would assess
Specialists and Market Makers the same Fee for Removing Liquidity as a
Customer. The Exchange notes that Specialists and Market Makers are
assessed lower Options Transaction Charges as compared to other market
participants, except Customers, because they have burdensome quoting
obligations \22\ to the market which do not apply to Customers,
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. The proposed differentiation
as between Customers, Specialists and Market Makers as compared to
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. The Exchange believes that the
increased fees better align the Fees for Removing Liquidity by
assessing Customers the same fee as a Specialist and Market Maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II--Electronic Firm Fee Discount
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the fee thereby decrease the
Electronic Firm Fee Discount for both electronic Penny Pilot and non-
Penny Pilot Options from $0.11 per contract to $0.13 per contract is
reasonable because the amendment would enable the Exchange to reward
market participants that directed Customer orders to the Exchange by
paying rebates as proposed herein, which in turn benefits all market
participants.
    The Exchange believes decreasing the Electronic Firm Fee Discount
for both electronic Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.11
per contract to $0.13 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange is continuing to incentivize Firms
by providing the ability to significantly lower fees and also earn
rebates in the Customer Rebate Program. All Firms will continue to have
an opportunity to qualify for a lower fee provided they achieve the
requisite volume. The Exchange believes this Electronic Firm Fee
Discount will continue to act as an incentive to attract electronic
Firm volume to the Exchange.
QCC Rebate
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to cap the QCC Rebate at

$275,000 per month is reasonable because the Exchange is proposing to
provide other incentives in Section II to attract volume. Also, this
cap, while limiting the amount of rebate that a market participant
would receive for transacting a certain amount of QCC volume, will
continue to incentivize market participants to seek to obtain the
highest rebate possible. The Exchange believes that its proposal to cap
the QCC Rebate at $275,000 per month is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all market participants would be uniformly
capped at $275,000 per month.
Elimination of Rebate
    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the $0.07 per contract rebate
for members executing electronically-delivered Customer Orders when
that member transacts an average daily volume of 50,000 Customer
contracts or greater in a given month and the additional rebate of
$0.03 per contract for electronically-delivered Customer orders that
qualified for the $0.07 rebate are reasonable because the elimination
of these rebates will enable the Exchange to reward market participants
that add liquidity to the Exchange with the proposed Customer Rebate
Program and in turn benefit all market participants. The elimination of
the two-tiered rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would be uniformly eliminated and unavailable to all market
participants. In addition, the Customer Rebate Program would be
available to these market participants.
Customer Rebate
    The Exchange's adoption of a Customer Rebate Program in Section II
of the Pricing Schedule is reasonable because the Exchange is seeking
to incentivize members to route Multiply-Listed electronically-
delivered Customer orders to the Exchange, with the exception of
electronic QCC Orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed Volume
Thresholds are reasonable because the Exchange believes that the
thresholds are attainable to members desiring to increase their volume
to achieve certain rebates and also bring greater Customer liquidity to
the Exchange. By incentivizing members to route Customer orders, the
Exchange desires to attract Customer orders which benefits all market
participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange. Other exchanges
employ incentive programs.\23\ The Exchange believes that its proposed
volume thresholds and rates will be competitive as compared to rebate
structures at other exchanges and attract order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's
(``CBOE'') Fees Schedule. CBOE offers each Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') a credit for each public customer order transmitted by the
TPH which is executed electronically in all multiply-listed option
classes, excluding QCC trades and executions related to contracts
that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with the
Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan, provided
the TPH meets certain volume thresholds in a month (Volume Incentive
Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to base rebates
not only on volume but on the type of order by creating three
categories, A, B and C, which specify the type of order that is
eligible for certain rebates within each volume tier or Threshold. The
Exchange is not only seeking to incentivize volume in Multiply-Listed
Options but also seeks to incentivize market participants to transact
certain types of Simple and Complex Orders in both Penny Pilot and non-
Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that the proposed
calculation of the Volume Threshold, totaling all Multiply-Listed
electronically delivered Customer volume, is reasonable because the
Exchange believes that too will incentivize members to route Multiply-
Listed electronically-delivered Customer orders to the Exchange, with
the exception of electronic QCC Orders (eQCC Orders). The Exchange
believes that its proposal to exclude electronic QCC Orders (eQCC
Orders) from the Threshold calculation is reasonable because QCC has
its own rebate schedule. Finally, the Exchange believes that excluding
PIXL from the rebates is reasonable because the Exchange is not seeking
to incentivize members to transact PIXL Orders. Also, today PIXL Orders
and QCC Orders are not eligible for the rebate and are excluded from
the calculation of the average daily volume. The Exchange assesses PIXL
Orders its own fees as set forth in Section IV, Part A of the Pricing
Schedule. Certain rebates are available for PIXL Orders as noted in
that section of the Pricing Schedule.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed Customer Rebate Program is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market
participants are eligible to receive a rebate provided they meet both
the volume and order type requirements. The Exchange believes that
incentivizing members to direct Customer order flow to the Exchange
will provide all market participants an opportunity to interact with
that order flow. Also, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to base rebates not only on volume but on the
type of orders because the Exchange would uniformly apply the rebates
to all market participants by order type. The Exchange currently offers
no rebate for Tier 1 (between 0 and 49,999 contracts in a month). The
Exchange currently offers a rebate of $0.07 per contract to members
that execute electronically-delivered Customer orders (Simple or
Complex) when transacting an average daily volume of 50,000
contracts.\24\ This is similar to the Category A rebate in Tier 2
(50,000 to 99,999 contracts in a month) of $0.07 per contract. Further,
Categories B \25\ and C \26\ in Tier 2 would receive a $0.10 per
contract rebate similar to today. The Exchange currently pays an
additional rebate of $0.03 per contract to members for electronically-
delivered Customer orders that qualified for the $0.07 rebate and added
liquidity in a Simple Order in a non-Penny Pilot or added or removed
liquidity in a Complex Order in a Penny Pilot Option for a total rebate
of $0.10 per contract. With respect to Tier 3 (over 100,000 contracts
in a month), the Exchange would pay an increased rebate of $0.09 per
contract to members that qualify for Category A (today those members
receive a $0.07 per contract rebate). Members that qualify for Category
B would receive an increased rebate of $0.12 per contract (today those
members receive a $0.10 per contract rebate). Members that qualify for
Category C would receive the same $0.10 per contract rebate as today.
In assessing the threshold categories and rates for rebates, the
Exchange proposed rebates that it believes are competitive in light of
other rebate structures offered today at other options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange is proposing to pay a $0.07 rebate to members
that qualify for a Category A, Tier 2 rebate for electronically-
delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot Options, Simple
Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options that remove liquidity and Complex
Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options.
    \25\ A Category B rebate will be paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot
Options.
    \26\ A Category C rebate will be paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot
Options that add liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed calculation of the Volume
Threshold, totaling all Multiply-Listed electronically delivered
Customer volume, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the calculation of the Volume Threshold would be uniformly applied to
all market

participants. The Exchange believes that its proposal to exclude
electronic QCC Orders (eQCC Orders) from the Threshold calculation is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because no rebate would be
paid on QCC Orders as a result of their exclusion from this section,
but this would not impact the ability to obtain a rebate for QCC Orders
as per the QCC Rebate schedule. Finally, the Exchange believes that
excluding PIXL Orders from the rebates is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would uniformly allow market
participants to count PIXL Orders in the Volume Threshold but would
uniformly not pay rebates on those orders.
    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to only offer rebates for Customer orders and
not to other market participants. Customer order flow brings unique
benefits to the marketplace in terms of liquidity and order
interaction. It is an important Exchange function to provide an
opportunity to all market participants to trade against Customer
orders.
Section II Monthly Market Cap
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the current fee applicable to
Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an
electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have reached
the Monthly Market Maker Cap from $0.07 to $0.12 per contract is
reasonable because it would enable the Exchange to offer the proposed
Customer Rebate Program to market participants that direct Customer
orders to the Exchange and in turn benefits all market participants.
    The proposed increase to the current fee applicable to Specialists
and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-
delivered and executed Customer order and have reached the Monthly
Market Maker Cap from $0.07 to $0.12 per contract is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because this fee would be uniformly applied to
all Specialists and Market Makers that qualified for the Cap and are on
the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer
order. The Exchange recently amended the Monthly Firm Fee Cap to only
apply to non-electronic equity options transaction fees. A Specialist
or Market Maker is able to qualify for the Monthly Market Maker Cap
without such a limitation as is currently applied to the Monthly Firm
Fee Cap. There is no corresponding fee for the Monthly Firm Fee Cap
because fees from electronically-delivered and executed volume are not
included in the Monthly Firm Fee Cap and therefore the Exchange does
not need to implement a similar fee to cover the cost of offering
rebates for electronically-delivered and executed Customer volume.
Miscellaneous
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the title of Part A from ``Single
contra-side'' to ``Simple Order'' is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes the caption
``Simple Orders'' more accurately describes the types of orders subject
to the fees and rebates in Section I, Part A of the Pricing Schedule.
This amendment is merely technical in nature and does not impact
pricing.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
ten exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee and rebate
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Accordingly, the fees
that are assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange must remain
competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues and
therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to
those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than
competing venues.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that incentivizing members with a Customer Rebate Program and
increasing other fees to allow the Exchange to offer competitive
rebates will attract Customer liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all
market participants.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\27\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2012-90 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-90. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make

available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2012-90 and should be submitted on or before August 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17573 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5356-5359]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9187; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-032-AD;
Amendment 39-18777; AD 2017-01-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly
Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by multiple reports of damaged and cracked rudder torque tube
shafts. This AD requires various repetitive inspections, and corrective
actions if necessary. This AD also provides a modification which
terminates the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 22, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 22,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Defense and Space, Services/Engineering Support, Avenida
de Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91 585 55 84;
fax: +34 91 585 31 27; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9187.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9187; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone:
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and
Space S.A. Model C-212 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 11, 2016 (81 FR 70062). The NPRM was prompted by
multiple reports of damaged and cracked rudder torque tube shafts. The
NPRM proposed to require repetitive general visual and high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the inner rudder torque tube shaft
for cracks, deformation, and damage; repetitive detailed inspections,
and HFEC inspections, if necessary, of the inner and outer rudder
torque tube shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage; and corrective
actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
damaged and cracked rudder torque tube shafts, which could lead to
structural failure of the affected rudder torque tube shaft and
possible reduced control of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2016-0052, dated March 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model
C-212 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported of finding a damaged and cracked
rudder torque tube shaft, Part Number (P/N) 212-46237-01. Subsequent
investigation determined that this damage occurred after parking of
the aeroplane during a heavy wind gust, without having set the
flight control surfaces in locked position.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
structural failure of the affected rudder torque tube shaft,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS-CASA issued
Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-C212-27-0001 to provide
inspection instructions, and Service Bulletin (SB) SB-212-27-0058
providing modification instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive inspections of the affected rudder torque tube shaft, and
introduces an optional modification [replacement], which constitutes
terminating action for those repetitive inspections.

    Required actions include repetitive general visual and HFEC
inspections of the inner rudder torque tube shaft for cracks,
deformation, and damage; repetitive detailed inspections, and HFEC
inspections, if necessary, of the inner and outer rudder torque tube
shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage; a general visual inspection
to verify rudder alignment if necessary; and corrective actions if
necessary. Repetitive inspections are done depending on conditions
(wind conditions, gust lock engagement, and rudder deviation)
identified in Airbus Defense & Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-
C212-27-0001, Revision 0, dated July 15, 2015 (``AOT-C212-27-0001, Rev.
0''). Damage may include bulging, dents, peeled paint, or visible
corrosion. Corrective actions include replacement of the rudder torque
tube shaft with a new rudder torque tube shaft, and repair. The
optional terminating action includes replacement of the rudder torque
tube shaft with an improved rudder torque tube shaft. You may examine
the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9187.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Clarification of the Actions in Paragraph (g)(2) of the Proposed AD

    Paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD specifies to do inspections
``after the conditions'' identified in paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> of AOT-C212-
27-0001, Rev. 0. We have revised paragraph (g)(2) of the AD to clarify
the inspections are done after any weather event that includes the
conditions identified in paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> of AOT-C212-27-0001, Rev. 0.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Airbus Defense and Space service
information.
     EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0058, dated April 25,
2014. This service information describes procedures for replacement of
the rudder torque tube shaft with an improved rudder torque tube shaft.

     AOT-C212-27-0001, Rev. 0. This service information
describes procedures for general visual and HFEC inspections of the
inner rudder torque tube shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage;
detailed inspections, and HFEC inspections, if necessary, of the inner
and outer rudder torque tube shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage;
a general visual inspection to verify rudder alignment; and corrective
actions, if necessary.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 49 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.....................  Up to 33 work-hours              $0   Up to $2,805 per     Up to $137,445 per
                                   x $85 per hour =                      inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                   $2,805 per
                                   inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Estimated Costs for Optional Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                          Labor cost             Parts cost         Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optional modification..................  Up to 48 work-hours x $85          $48,729   Up to $52,809.
                                          per hour = $4,080.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions and parts cost specified in
this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-01-10 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as
Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.): Amendment 39-18777; Docket No.
FAA-2016-9187; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-032-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 22, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known
as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-
212-CD, C-212-CE, C-212-CF, C-212-DF, and C-212-DE airplanes,
certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of damaged and cracked
rudder torque tube shafts. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct damaged and cracked rudder torque tube shafts, which could
lead to structural failure of the affected rudder torque tube shaft
and possible reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes equipped with a rudder torque tube shaft having
part number (P/N) 212-46237-01: Do the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Do
general visual, detailed, and high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections of the inner and outer surfaces of the rudder torque
tube shaft, as applicable, for cracks, deformation, and damage, in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense & Space Alert
Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0001, Revision 0, dated July 15,
2015 (``AOT-C212-27-0001, Rev. 0'').
    (2) Thereafter, before further flight after any weather event
that includes the conditions identified in paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> of AOT-
C212-27-0001, Rev. 0, do the applicable inspections identified for
each condition.

(h) Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any crack, deformation, or damage is found, before further flight do
all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with AOT-C212-27-
0001, Rev. 0. Where AOT-C212-27-0001, Rev. 0, specifies to contact
Airbus for corrective action: Before further flight, accomplish
corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

(i) Optional Modification

    Modification of an airplane by replacing the rudder torque tube
shaft P/N 212-46237-01 with an improved part, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-
0058, dated April 25, 2014, constitutes terminating action for the
inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD for
the modified airplane.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Military All
Operator Letter (AOL) AOL-212-037, Revision 01, dated April 11,
2014.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or EADS CASA's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0052, dated March 14, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2016-9187.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0058, dated April 25,
2014.
    (ii) Airbus Defense & Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-
C212-27-0001, Revision 0, dated July 15, 2015.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Defense and Space, Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de
Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91 585 55 84;
fax: +34 91 585 31 27; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 4, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-00407 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 281-283]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76789; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Its Price List To Modify Certain Fees for Executions at the
Close

December 29, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 16, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in

Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to modify certain
fees for executions at the close, effective January 4, 2016. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to change certain
fees for executions at the close, effective January 4, 2016. The
proposed change would only apply to transactions in securities priced
$1.00 or more.
    Other than for market at-the-close (``MOC'') and limit at-the-close
(``LOC'') orders, the Exchange does not charge for orders executed at
the close, including Floor broker orders swept into the close. However,
member organizations that execute during the billing month average
daily volume (``ADV'') of at least 1,000,000 shares through orders
executed at the close (except MOC and LOC orders) and Floor broker
orders swept into the close, are charged $0.0003 per share for such
orders. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $0.00035 per
share, but to apply that fee only to shares executed in excess of
750,000 ADV during the billing month. For example, a member
organization that has an ADV of 3 million shares during a billing month
consisting of 20 trading days would pay the $0.00035 per share fee on
the 2.25 million shares that exceed 750,000 on average each day. For
the 20 trading days, this would be a total of 45 million shares for
that month, and a total fee of $15,750. By comparison with the current
fee, the member organization that has an ADV of 3 million shares would
pay the $0.0003 per share fee on an ADV of 3 million shares over 20
trading days, or a total of 60 million shares for that month, for a
total fee of $18,000. Member organizations with execution volumes below
an ADV of 750,000 shares during the billing month would continue not to
be charged for these trades.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member
organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee increases for certain
executions at the close are reasonable. The Exchange's closing auction
is a recognized industry benchmark,\6\ and member organizations receive
a substantial benefit from the Exchange in obtaining high levels of
executions at the Exchange's closing price on a daily basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, the pricing and valuation of certain indices,
funds, and derivative products require primary market prints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to modify fees for executions at the close (other than
MOC and LOC orders) and Floor broker executions swept into the close
for member organizations that execute an ADV of at least 750,000 of
such executions on a combined basis, by increasing the applicable fee
but to apply that fee only to shares executed over 750,000 ADV during
the billing month, because member organizations that reach 750,000 ADV
threshold are generally larger member organizations that are deriving a
substantial benefit from this high volume of closing executions.
Nonetheless, the Exchange must continue to encourage liquidity from
multiple sources. Allowing member organizations with execution volumes
of an ADV below 750,000 shares during the billing month to continue to
obtain executions at the close at no charge, and to charge the fee only
with respect to shares executed over 750,000 ADV during the billing
month, continues to encourage member organizations to send orders to
the Exchange for the closing auction. The Exchange believes that its
proposal would equitably balance these interests and continue to
encourage order flow from multiple sources, which helps to maintain the
quality of the Exchange's closing auctions for the benefit of all
market participants. The proposed fee is also reasonable, in that it is
lower than applicable closing rates on the NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC
(``NASDAQ'').\7\ For example, the default fee for executions in
NASDAQ's ``Closing Cross'' is $0.0008 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NASDAQ Rule 7018(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a
public exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and
enhancing order execution opportunities for member organizations. The
Exchange believes that this could promote competition between the
Exchange and other execution venues, including those that currently
offer similar order types and comparable transaction pricing, by
encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the

Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their
own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may
readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes
that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these
considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2015-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-66. 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 will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSE-2015-66 and should be submitted on or before
January 26, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33116 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15763-15764]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0625]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Filing Objections and
Requests for a Hearing on a Regulation or Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by April
16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0184.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed

collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Filing Objections and Requests for a Hearing on a Regulation or Order--
21 CFR Part 12 (OMB Control Number 0910-0184)--Extension

    The regulations in 21 CFR 12.22, issued under section 701(e)(2) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)(2)), set
forth the instructions for filing objections and requests for a hearing
on a regulation or order under Sec.  12.20(d) (21 CFR 12.20(d)).
Objections and requests must be submitted within the time specified in
Sec.  12.20(e). Each objection, for which a hearing has been requested,
must be separately numbered and specify the provision of the regulation
or the proposed order. In addition, each objection must include a
detailed description and analysis of the factual information and any
other document, with some exceptions, supporting the objection. Failure
to include this information constitutes a waiver of the right to a
hearing on that objection. FDA uses the description and analysis to
determine whether a hearing request is justified. The description and
analysis may be used only for the purpose of determining whether a
hearing has been justified under Sec.  12.24 (21 CFR 12.24) and do not
limit the evidence that may be presented if a hearing is granted.
    Respondents to this information collection are those parties that
may be adversely affected by an order or regulation.
    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FDA published a 60-day notice
for public comment in the Federal Register of September 9, 2011 (76 FR
55922), to which the Agency received two comments. However, these
comments did not address the information collection.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.22...........................               3               1               3              20              60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The burden estimate for this collection of information is based on
past filings. Agency personnel responsible for processing the filing of
objections and requests for a public hearing on a specific regulation
or order estimate approximately three requests are received by the
Agency annually, with each requiring approximately 20 hours of
preparation time.

    Dated: March 12, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-6393 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 227 (Wednesday, November 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73770-73771]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-P-1153]

Determination That TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (Acetaminophen With
Codeine Phosphate) Oral Tablets, 325 Milligrams/7.5 Milligrams, 325
Milligrams/15 Milligrams, 325 Milligrams/30 Milligrams, and 325
Milligrams/60 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of
Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine
phosphate) oral tablets, 325 milligrams (mg)/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325
mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve
abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for TYLENOL WITH CODEINE
(acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325
mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, if all other legal and
regulatory requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Baluss, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6278, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3469.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral
tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg,
are the subject of ANDA 85-056 held by McNeil Ortho Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and were initially approved July 9, 1976. TYLENOL WITH CODEINE is
indicated for the relief of mild to moderately severe pain.
    In a letter dated January 26, 1993, McNeil Ortho Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. notified FDA that TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with codeine
phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and
325 mg/60 mg, were being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product
to the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book.
    Lachman Consultant Services, Inc. submitted a citizen petition
dated April 7, 2015 (Docket No. FDA-2015-P-1153), under 21 CFR 10.30,
requesting that the Agency determine whether TYLENOL WITH CODEINE
(acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325
mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, were withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness.

    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with
codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30
mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other
information suggesting that TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with
codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30
mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, were withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records
concerning the withdrawal of TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen with
codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30
mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated
relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events.
We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that the product
was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list TYLENOL WITH CODEINE
(acetaminophen with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325
mg/15 mg, 325 mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, in the ``Discontinued Drug
Product List'' section of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug
Product List'' delineates, among other items, drug products that have
been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (acetaminophen
with codeine phosphate) oral tablets, 325 mg/7.5 mg, 325 mg/15 mg, 325
mg/30 mg, and 325 mg/60 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as
they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval
of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should
be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA
applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: November 20, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-30051 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 72472-72473]
[DOCID:fr28no08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. EL08-89-000]

Kansas City Power & Light Company Aquila, Inc.; Notice of Filing

November 21, 2008.
    Take notice that on November 19, 2008, Kansas City Power & Light
Company and Aquila, Inc. filed additional information, revised
Attachments A-1 and B-1, in support of its Petition for Declaratory
Order, filed with the Commission on September 28, 2008.
    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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 1, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28286 Filed 11-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P