[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33383-33386]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14080]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64591; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-79]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Allow
Qualified Exchange Members to Act as Off-Floor Option Specialists in
One or More Options Classes

June 2, 2011.
    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 June 1, 2011, 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 is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend
Exchange Rule 501 (Specialist Appointment) and Rule 1020 (Registration
and Functions of Options Specialists) to allow qualified Exchange
members to act as off-floor option specialists in one or more options
classes.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, at the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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 purpose of this proposal is to amend Exchange Rules 501 and
1020 to allow qualified Exchange members to act as off-floor option
specialists in one or more options classes (known as ``Remote
Specialists'').
a. Background
    There are several types of market makers on the Exchange, including
Registered Options Traders (``ROTs''),\3\ Streaming Quote Traders
(``SQTs''),\4\ Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs''),\5\ and
specialists.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ROT is a regular member or a foreign currency options
participant of the Exchange located on the trading floor who has
received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for his
own account. See Rule 1014(b)(i).
    \4\ An SQT is an ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in
options to which such SQT is assigned. An SQT may only submit such
quotations while such SQT is physically present on the floor of the
Exchange. See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \5\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically in options to which such RSQT has been assigned. An
RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically from off the
floor of the Exchange. See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \6\ Rule 1014 also discusses other market makers including
Directed SQTs and Directed RSQTs, which receive Directed Orders as
defined in Rule 1080(l)(i)(A). Specialists may likewise receive
Directed Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specialists are Exchange members who are registered as options
specialists pursuant to Rule 1020(a) \7\. Current subsection (a) States
that specialists include qualified RSQTs approved by the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 501 to function as off-floor Remote Specialists in one
or more options; and that Remote Specialists have all the rights and
obligations of an options specialist, unless Exchange rules provide
otherwise.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The performance of all specialists, including Remote
Specialists, is evaluated pursuant to Rule 511.
    \8\ Following is a list of such rules, which are influenced by
the fact that Remote Specialists do not have a physical floor
presence. Rule 1014(g) indicates that Remote Specialists have
priority that is coextensive with that of electronic market makers
such as RSQTs. Options Floor Procedures Advice (``OFPA'') B-3
indicates that Remote Specialists are exempted from the requirement
that an ROT including a specialist trade a certain percentage of
volume on the Exchange in person. Rule 501 indicates that, unlike
on-floor specialists, Remote Specialists do not need to retain an
assistant specialist or a back-up specialist unit. Commentary .01 to
Rule 1014 indicates that, like RSQTs, Remote Specialist do not have
an in-person trade execution requirement. OFPA E-1 indicates that,
unlike specialists that must have a representative available on the
floor for the thirty minutes before the opening and the thirty
minutes after the close of trading and one hour after the
preliminary trade reports are distributed, Remote Specialists must
have a representative available via telephonic and/or electronic
communication access.

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

    Rule 1020 sets forth additional provisions that are specifically
applicable to specialists. Subsection (b) of Rule 1020, for example,
states that as a condition of a member being registered as a specialist
in one or more options, it is understood that, in addition to the
execution of orders entrusted to him in such options, a specialist is
to engage in a course of dealings for his own account to assist in the
maintenance insofar as reasonably practicable, of a fair and orderly
market on the Exchange in such options. Subsection (c) states that a
specialist or his member organization shall not effect on the Exchange
purchases or sales of any option in which such specialist is
registered, for any account in which he or his member organization is
directly or indirectly interested, unless such dealings are reasonably
necessary to permit such specialist to maintain a fair and orderly
market.
    Rule 501 generally deals with the process of applying for approval
as a specialist that would be eligible to receive allocations of
options issues. Current subsection (f) discusses how RSQTs on the
Exchange may become Remote Specialists in one or more options, where
the Remote Specialists do not have a physical presence on the trading
floor of the Exchange and where the Exchange determines that it cannot
allocate such options to a floor-based specialist. Subsection (f)(ii)
states that Remote Specialists must be accessible to Exchange staff and
members during all trading hours and must provide telephonic and/or
electronic access to such specialists and/or associated staff at all
times during trading hours. Subsection (f)(iii) states that Remote
Specialists have all the rights and obligations of specialists, unless
Exchange rules provide otherwise.
    Until such time that the rule filing proposing Remote Specialists
was approved this year,\9\ all option classes and series listed on the
Exchange had to have a floor-based specialist with a physical presence
on the options floor.\10\ The floor-based specialist system is
historically based in the traditional open outcry auction market system
that has trading crowds at physical trading posts on the floor and
Floor Brokers \11\ that represent orders on the floor on behalf of
others (``auction market system'' or ``open outcry system''). The
auction market system is necessary, and indeed invaluable, to certain
types of market participants (e.g., institutional traders and certain
large-volume traders). The Exchange has developed, in parallel to the
auction market system, an extensive electronic means to execute option
orders.\12\ As a result, the Exchange operates an options market that
combines a traditional open outcry auction market trading floor with
electronic trading.\13\ In January 2011, the Commission approved the
initial Remote Specialist filing in which the Exchange proposed to
allow RSQTs to act as Remote Specialists that are not physically
present on the trading floor, where a floor-based specialist was not
willing to accept (or retain) allocation of an option.\14\ The Exchange
is expanding the Remote Specialist position by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63717 (January 14,
2011), 76 FR 4141 (January 24, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2010-145) (order
approving proposal to establish Remote Specialist on Exchange under
specified circumstances) (the ``initial Remote Specialist filing'').
    \10\ At least one exchange that uses a specialist system has
allowed certain option series to trade without a designated lead
market maker (specialist). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
56001 (July 2, 2007), 72 FR 37557 (July 10, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-
34) (order approving). And at least one exchange that does not have
a specialist system has allowed options to be traded without any
market maker. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61735 (March
18, 2010), 75 FR 14227 (March 24, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-007) (order
approving).
    \11\ An Options Floor Broker is an individual who is registered
with the Exchange for the purpose, while on the Options Floor, of
accepting and executing options orders received from members and
member organizations. An Options Floor Broker shall not accept an
order from any other source unless he is the nominee of a member
organization qualified to transact business with the public in which
event he may accept orders from public customers of the
organization. See Rule 1060.
    \12\ See Rule 1080 regarding the Exchange's electronic order,
trading, and execution system. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-
Phlx-2009-32) (order approving the Exchange's enhanced electronic
platform, XL II).
    \13\ The current Phlx market model combining open outcry and
electronic trading is also used by other options exchanges, such as
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''), NYSE Amex LLC
(``NYSE Amex'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). Only electronic
options trading is done on other exchanges, such as the
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') and The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'').
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63717 (January 14,
2011), 76 FR 4141 (January 24, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2010-145) (order
approving proposal to establish Remote Specialists on the Exchange
pursuant to Rules 501 and 1020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that this proposal is in no way meant to
diminish the need for the physical options trading floor on the
Exchange. To the contrary, the Exchange recognizes the value of a
physical trading floor and confirms its need and importance to the
market place while expanding, through this proposal, the ability for
floor specialists to engage in remote market making.
b. The Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to enhance the current Remote Specialist
model so that all eligible ROTs on the Exchange \15\ may function as
Remote Specialists. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the
requirement that an option may be allocated to a Remote Specialist only
to the extent that the option cannot be allocated to (or retained by)
an on-floor specialist. Significantly, all of the key principles now
applicable to Remote Specialists will continue in force with this
proposal: (a) Remote Specialists would be subject to all of the
obligations and privileges of floor-based specialists unless otherwise
noted in Exchange rules; (b) Remote Specialists and on-floor
specialists would have equivalent quoting requirements; \16\ and (c)
RSQTs approved to act as Remote Specialists would have heightened
quoting obligations when acting as Remote Specialists in contrast to
when acting as RSQTs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ SQTs would not be eligible to be Remote Specialists because
they can function only on the physical options trading floor of the
Exchange.
    \16\ See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(2).
    \17\ See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal would significantly expand
the universe of market participants that could assume the role of
Remote Specialist. The Exchange also believes that allowing more
eligible ROTs to assume the role of Remote Specialist would further
ensure the listing, or continued listing, of options on the Exchange to
its benefit and the benefit of traders on the Exchange, market
participants, and the investing public.
    In making the proposed changes, the Exchange would consolidate
portions of the definition of Remote Specialist from current Rule
501(f) into proposed Rule 1020(a). This would clarify the function of
these rules such that Rule 501 would deal predominantly with the Remote
Specialist application process and Rule 1020 would deal with the
definitional prerequisites of being a Remote Specialist.
    The Exchange proposes the following specific changes to Rules 501
and 1020. First, the Exchange proposes to move the concept that a
Remote Specialist may not have a physical presence on the Exchange
floor from Rule 501(f) into Rule 1020(a)(ii). Proposed subsection
(a)(ii) would state that a Remote

Specialist is an options specialist in one or more classes that may not
have a physical presence on an Exchange floor and is approved by the
Exchange pursuant to Rule 501. The Exchange notes that this language is
in conformity with the goal of allowing all eligible ROTs (and not only
RSQTs) to be off-floor specialists.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to move language regarding Remote
Specialist rights and obligations from Rule 501(f) into Rule
1020(a)(iii). Proposed subsection (a)(iii) would state that a Remote
Specialist has all the rights and obligations of an options specialist,
unless Exchange rules provide otherwise.\18\ At the same time, the
current language in Rule 501(f) that a Remote Specialist does not need
to have an assistant specialist or a back-up specialist unit, as
required in subsections (b) and (d) of Rule 501 for traditional
specialists, would remain in Rule 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The language regarding rights and obligations of Remote
Specialists also currently exists in Rule 1020(a), albeit in a
different location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Exchange proposes to move the concept that a Remote
Specialist must be available during trading hours from Rule 501(f) into
Rule 1020(a)(iv). Proposed subsection (a)(iv) would state that a Remote
Specialist shall be accessible to Exchange staff and members during all
trading hours for the product(s) allocated to such specialist and shall
provide Exchange staff and members with telephonic and/or electronic
communication access to such specialist and/or associated staff at all
times during trading hours. This is compatible with the principal that
all specialists must be available and reachable during trading hours.
    Fourth, the Exchange clarifies subsection (f) of Rule 501and
subsection (a) of Rule 1020 to indicate that RSQTs are no longer the
only ROTs that may be Remote Specialists. Rather, the Exchange proposes
to state in Rule 501(f) and Rule 1020(a) that options specialists
currently operating from the Exchange's physical trading floor may
likewise be Remote Specialists. This is crucial to the Exchange's goal
of expanding the Remote Specialist position so that it is available to
all qualified Exchange members and thereby serves to enhance the depth
and liquidity of options traded on the Exchange.
    Fifth, the Exchange proposes new subsection (a)(v) of Rule 1020 to
state that a Remote Specialist may have a representative on the trading
floor of the Exchange during trading hours (know as a ``Designee'').
The Designee of a Remote Specialist may represent the specialist in
open outcry trades in a trading crowd, which would enable the Remote
Specialist to priority, if any, to the extent of the open outcry
trades.\19\ A Remote Specialist would not be eligible to receive a
participation entitlement with respect to orders represented by the
Designee in open outcry.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 1014(g).
    \20\ See Rule 1014(g)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes language in subsection (a)(v) of Rule 1020 to
establish requirements for Designees. Specifically, proposed subsection
(a)(v)(A) would state that a Designee is an individual who is approved
by the Exchange for the time period specified by the Exchange to
represent a Remote Specialist in its capacity as a Remote Specialist.
Moreover, the Exchange may require specified supervision of a Designee
and/or limit a Designee's authority to represent a Remote Specialist.
Proposed subsection (a)(v)(B) would state that a Designee must be a
member of the Exchange, an affiliate of the Remote Specialist, and a
registered Remote Options Trader pursuant to the rules of the
Exchange.\21\ And subsection (a)(v)(C) would state that a Designee may
not trade as a Market-Maker in securities allocated to the Remote
Specialist unless the Designee is acting on behalf of the Remote
Specialist in its capacity as a Remote Specialist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ However, the Exchange would have the discretion to permit
an individual who is not affiliated with a Remote Specialist to act
as a Designee for the Remote Specialist on an emergency basis,
provided that the individual satisfies the other requirements of
subparagraph (a)(v)(B) of this Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its Remote Specialist Designee concept is
similar to that of CBOE's off-floor Designated Market Maker (``DPM'')
Designee concept in CBOE Rules 8.81 and 8.83 Interpretations and
Policies .01.
    Sixth, the Exchange proposes to add the ability of the Exchange to
evaluate whether a request of an on-floor specialist to operate as a
Remote Specialist on a class-by-class basis is in the best interest of
the Exchange. Specifically, proposed new subsection (f)(i) of Rule 501
would allow the Exchange to consider information that it believes will
be of assistance in determining whether a current on-floor specialist
may become a Remote Specialist. This information may include any one or
more of the following: Performance, operational capacity of the
Exchange or options specialist, efficiency, number and experience of
personnel of the options specialist who will be performing functions
related to the trading of the applicable securities, number of
securities involved, number of ROTs and SQTs affected and trading
volume of the securities. The Exchange notes that proposed subsection
(f)(i) is verbatim, to the extent practicable, like the language of
CBOE Rule 8.83 Interpretations and Policies .01, which discusses
information that CBOE may consider when appointing an off-floor
DPM.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange intends to set up a defined area or post on
the options floor that would enable market makers that have a
physical floor presence (e.g., Floor Brokers) to interact with
Remote Specialist quotes and trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes further that its Remote Specialist concept as
amended is similar to that of CBOE's off-floor DPM concept that was
approved by the Commission more than four years ago and remains one of
the principal market making classes on CBOE.\23\ The Exchange believes
that its Remote Specialist proposal is, from a competitive perspective,
justified and proper. The proposal ensures the listing, or continued
listing, of options on the Exchange and furthers its ability to compete
effectively in the market place to the benefit of traders, market
participants, and the investing public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-55531 (March 26,
2007) 72 FR 15736 (April 2, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-94) (order approving
proposal that, among other things, established off-floor DPMs
pursuant to CBOE Rule 8.83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, rule-based principles that are now applicable to Remote
Specialists on the Exchange will continue to be applicable to Remote
Specialists without change when this proposal is approved. The firm
quoting (market making) obligations for market makers on Phlx will
remain the same as set forth in Rule 1014 in subsection (b)(ii)(D)(2)
for specialists and SQST that are acting as Remote Specialists, and in
subsection (b)(ii)(D)(1) for SQTs and RSQTS when they are not acting as
Remote Specialists.\24\ Bid ask differentials will remain the same as
forth in Rule 1012. Minimum increments will remain the same as set

forth in Rule 1034.\25\ Information barriers will remain the same.\26\
And, all specialists including Remote Specialists will be subject to
the same specialist performance evaluation procedures set forth in Rule
511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In addition, subsection (b)(ii)(B) states that an RSQT must
quote in the capacity of RSQT or Remote Specialist but not both.
Thus, where an RSQT functions as a traditional RSQT and also as a
Remote Specialist, if an RSQT is allocated two option classes as a
Remote Specialist, in those two classes the Remote Specialist will
have the very same quoting (market making) requirements that are
currently applicable to all specialists, including continuous
quoting obligations. In the remaining classes to which an RSQT is
appointed, the RSQT will have the same quoting (market making)
requirements that are applicable to all RSQTs. The RSQT will not be
able to submit quotes or act as RSQT in the two allocated Remote
Specialist classes.
    \25\ Minimum increments for certain listing programs, such as
the $.50 Program and the $1 Strike Program, are also discussed in
Commentary .05 to Rule 1012.
    \26\ Commentary .06 to Rule 1014 states, for example, that RSQTs
are required to maintain information barriers with affiliates that
may act in a specialist or market maker capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Surveillance
    The Exchange has developed surveillance procedures for its
electronic and auction markets that include Remote Specialists. The
Exchange will use the surveillance procedures now in place to perform
surveillance of Remote Specialists.
d. Conclusion
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to allow eligible ROTs to
act as off-floor Remote Specialists in one or more options classes
would ensure the listing, or continued listing, of options on the
Exchange to the benefit of traders, market participants, and public
customers making hedging and trading decisions. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade and to be in the public interest.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission has approved proposals that
allow competing options exchanges to have off-floor (remote) market
makers that are similar in concept to the proposed Remote
Specialists.\27\ The Exchange does not believe that this filing raises
any novel issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55531 (March 26,
2007), 72 FR 15736 (April 2, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-94) (order
approving proposal to establish off-floor Designated Primary Market-
Makers). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57747 (April
30, 2008), 73 FR 25811 (May 7, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-49) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness to establish off-floor Lead
Market-Makers); 57568 (March 26, 2008), 73 FR 18016 (April 2, 2008)
(SR-CBOE-2008-32 (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness to
establish ability of off-floor Delegated Primary Market-Makers to
operate in any options class traded on Hybrid); and 52827 (November
23, 2005), 70 FR 72139 (December 1, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-56) (approval
order establishing Lead Market Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \28\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \29\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system by allowing,
similarly to other options markets, eligible Remote Options Traders on
the Exchange to function as off-floor Remote Specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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 Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \30\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder \31\
because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-79 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-2011-79. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-79 and should be
submitted on or before June 29, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14080 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM Subject: Asulam ( List A, Case 0265, Chemical 106901/ 02). Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document. Product and Residue Chemistry Chapter. DP Barcode D278884.

From: José J. Morales, Chemist Reregistration Branch III Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Through: Catherine Eiden, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch III Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

To: Demson Fuller, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch I Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508W)

SRRD has requested that HED conduct a Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document for asulam. The Asulam Reregistration Standard Guidance Document was issued 12/ 87 and was based on the Asulam Reregistration Standard Science Chapter dated 8/ 28/ 87. The Asulam Product and Residue Reregistration Standard Update was completed 1/ 15/ 91. The Product Chemistry Chapter and the Residue Chemistry Chapter for the Asulam Reregistration Eligibility Document ( RED) were completed on 04/ 16/ 94 ( DP Barcodes D193175 and D198030; CBRS Nos. 12299 and 13041). A revision to the chronic anticipated residues ( Table C) was subsequently made ( S. Funk, DP Barcode D208551, CBRS No. 14623, 12/ 06/ 94). The Metabolism Committee met on 12/ 13/ 94 and decided that the metabolite quinone/ hydroquinone need not be considered further in risk assessments ( S. Funk, 01/ 18/ 95 Memorandum of Committee Meeting). The Residue Chemistry Chapter was revised ( 1/ 24/ 95, D198030, S. Funk) to incorporate the deletion of quinone/ hydroquinone from the residue of concern, the revised anticipated residues, and the review of a registrant submission on storage stability received after the original Chapter date ( 04/ 94).

A tolerance is established for negligible residues of asulam per se in/ on sugarcane at 0.1 ppm [ 40 CFR § 180.360]. HED has recommended that the tolerance expression be revised to include all metabolites containing the sulfanilamide moiety. An adequate enforcement method is available for the determination of combined residues of asulam and all metabolites containing the sulfanilamide moiety in/ on sugarcane. Conclusion All residue chemistry deficiencies noted in the 1/ 24/ 95 Residue Chemistry Chapter of the Asulam RED have been adequately addressed. Sufficient data are now available to reassess all tolerances associated with asulam use listed in 40 CFR § 180.360. Some product chemistry deficiencies remain outstanding, but they do not impact the tolerance reassessment decision.

Background Asulam ( methyl 4 sulfanilylcarbamate) is a postemergent systemic carbamate herbicide marketed under the trade name ASULOX ® Herbicide by Aventis CropScience. ASULOX ® contains the sodium salt of asulam and is registered for use on sugarcane as a 3.34 lb/ gal soluble concentrate/ liquid ( SC/ L) formulation. This formulation may be applied postemergence as a band or broadcast application using ground or aerial equipment or as a spot treatment. Apart from ITS food use on sugarcane, asulam is used on christmas tree plantations, ornamentals, turf ( sod farms only) and non cropland uses.

Asulam is primarily used in agriculture with key markets in Florida and Louisiana. Sugarcane is the major use site for asulam ( 95% of the market). The asulam use rate, for sugarcane, ranges from 2.5 to 3.34 lbs a. i./ A and can applied up to two times per year. For all other uses, it can be applied only once. The average rate of 2.5 lbs ai/ acre is the typical labeled use rate for Sugarcane.

Apart from its use on sugarcane, asulam is used on Christmas tree plantations, ornamentals, turf ( Sod Farms Only) and non cropland uses ( boundary fences, fencerows, hedgerows, lumberyards, storage areas and industrial plant sites, and warehouse lots). For Christmas trees and ornamentals, the label use rate is 3.34 lbs a. i./ A and can be applied once per year as a postemergent treatment. For turf, the label use rate is about 2 lbs. a. i./ A and can be applied once per year. For non cropland uses, the label use rate ranges between 2.9 lbs a. i./ A to 3.34 lbs a. i./ A and can be applied once per year.

Detailed Considerations The following deficiencies were noted in the 1/ 24/ 95 HED Residue Chemistry Chapter:

GLN 860.1200: Directions for Use The registrant must submit label amendment requests for the use of asulam on sugarcane. The amendments must include lower maximum application rates and/ or longer PHIs, must be region specific, and must be supported by new field trials.

2 GLN 860.1300: Nature of the Residue  Plants The HED Metabolism Committee has determined that the presence or absence of radiolabeled quinone and/ or hydroquinone must be determined by a new sugarcane metabolism study. It was also concluded that determination of asulam, free and conjugated, sulfanilamide, N4  acetylasulam, and N4  acetylsulfanilamide as a common moiety is acceptable.

GLN 860.1500: Crop Field Trials New field trials are required for sugarcane using modified PHIs and application rates; current data show an overtolerance situation for the combined residue of asulam and its sulfanilamide containing metabolites.

GLN 860.1850: Confined Accumulation in Rotational Crops A confined rotational crop study is required. A preliminary report was submitted ( MRID 41857701), but contained no details on the isolation and characterization/ identification of the radiolabeled residues. A plantback interval of at least 6 months is required.

These deficiencies have been addressed in the following reviews:

The HED Metabolism Committee Meeting Held on December 13, 1994: Quinone/ Hydroquinone Metabolite of Asulam ( S. Funk, 1/ 24/ 95, DP Barcode none).

Asulam ( List A, Case 0265, Chemical 106901/ 02). Sugarcane Field Trials ( S. Funk, DP Barcode D219787, 2/ 23/ 96).

Asulam ( List A, Case 0265, Chemical 106901/ 02). RPAC Response to the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. MRID 43902500 ( Product Chemistry). MRID 43902501 ( Confined Rotational Crop). S. Funk, DP Barcode D223175, 5/ 14/ 96.

The following deficiencies remain outstanding:

1. The registrant proposes a tolerance for asulam residue in/ on cane of 0.5 ppm, resulting from 2 applications, each 3.34 lbs. a. i./ Acre, with a 100 day PHI. The data do not support this tolerance. For the proposed use pattern, the maximum residue, corrected for loss in storage, is 0.71 ppm. A tolerance of 1.0 ppm is appropriate for residues of asulam and the sulfanilamide containing metabolites in/ on sugarcane. This replaces the original tolerance of 0.1 ppm or the reevaluated tolerance of 15 ppm from the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( S. Funk, 1/ 24/ 95, D198030).

2. HED recommends that the registrant request label amendments specifying a maximum of two asulam applications per year to sugarcane at a maximum single application rate of 3 3.34 lbs. a. i./ A, a PHI of 100 days for Louisiana, a PHI of 140 days for the remainder of the US mainland, and a PHI of 400 days for Hawaii. If the registrant requests the suggested label changes, no further sugarcane field trial data are required for asulam at this time. No plantback restrictions are required on the label.

3. Based on the highest average field trial residue and the concentration factor from processing, a tolerance of 30 ppm is needed for asulam and sulfanilamide containing metabolite residues in molasses.

4. The decrease in the sugarcane tolerance for asulam and its sulfanilamide containing metabolites from the reevaluated 15 ppm to 1 ppm does not alter the previous conclusion that residues of asulam and the sulfanilamide containing metabolites are anticipated in ruminant commodities from a diet containing 10% molasses. Animal commodity tolerances should be proposed, 0.05 ppm for ruminant milk and meat and fat and 0.2 ppm for ruminant meat byproducts. There are no significant poultry feed items; poultry commodity tolerances are not needed.

5. Due to the small incremental upper bound risk from hydroquinone/ quinone on sugarcane from the use of asulam when compared to natural background levels of quinone/ hydroquinone on other commodities, no further risk assessment will be required for the asulam metabolite hydroquinone/ quinone.

6. Because hydroquinone/ quinone remains a chemical of toxicological concern, if the registrant proposes new uses for this chemical, new plant metabolism studies must be performed ( relevant to the proposed new uses), aimed specifically at determining the presence and concentration of radiolabeled hydroquinone/ quinone. The registrant should also determine the naturally occurring background levels of hydroquinone/ quinone and arbutin in sugarcane. The Metabolism Committee will reconsider its position if new metabolism studies show that quinone/ hydroquinone/ arbutin comprises a significant portion of the radiolabeled residue.

7. The following product chemistry data guidelines remain unfulfilled for the technical asulam sodium salt: GLN 830.6317 ( Storage Stability) and 830.6320 ( Corrosion Characteristics).

The tolerance reassessment is shown in Table 1.

4 Commodity Table 1. Tolerance Reassessment Summary Current Tolerance ( ppm) Tolerance Reassessment ( ppm) Comment Tolerance listed under 40 CFR § 180.360 Sugarcane 0.1 1.0 Tolerances to be Established Under 40 CFR § 180.360 Molasses   30 Milk   0.05 Meat and Fat of Cattle, Goat, Hogs, Horses, Sheep   0.05 Meat byproducts of Cattle, Goat, Hogs, Horses, Sheep   0.2 Attachments:

Asulam ( List A, Case 0265, Chemical 106901/ 02). Update to Residue Chemistry Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( S. Funk, 1/ 24/ 95, DP Barcode D198030).

The HED Metabolism Committee Meeting Held on December 13, 1994: Quinone/ Hydroquinone Metabolite of Asulam ( S. Funk, 1/ 24/ 95, DP Barcode none).

Asulam ( List A, Case 0265, Chemical 106901/ 02). Sugarcane Field Trials ( S. Funk, DP Barcode D219787, 2/ 23/ 96).

Asulam ( List A, Case 0265, Chemical 106901/ 02). RPAC Response to the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. MRID 43902500 ( Product Chemistry). MRID 43902501 ( Confined Rotational Crop). S. Funk, DP Barcode D223175, 5/ 14/ 96.

5


[Federal Register: April 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 80)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20806-20809]
[DOCID:fr26ap07-33]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 1051

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0858; FRL-8305-7]
RIN 2060-A035

Exhaust Emission Test Procedures for All-Terrain Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In a rule published November 8, 2002, EPA promulgated new
emission standards for recreational vehicles beginning in model year
2006. This included a newly regulated class of nonroad vehicles/engines
commonly referred to as all-terrain vehicles. In that rulemaking, a
temporary provision was included allowing manufacturers to certify all-
terrain vehicles over a steady-state, engine-based, duty cycle for
exhaust emissions prior to the 2009 model year in lieu of the
transient, chassis-based, Federal Test Procedure which was effective
for 2006 and later model years. In this rulemaking we are proposing to
extend the availability of this temporary provision for in some cases
up to an additional six model years, after which the chassis-based
Federal Test Procedure would become the only available test cycle. More
specifically, manufacturers would have to certify exhaust emission
engine families representing not less than 50 percent of their U.S.-
directed production on the Federal Test Procedure in model year 2014
and 100 percent in 2015. Manufacturers with only one all-terrain
vehicle exhaust emission engine engine family would not be required to
use the Federal Test Procedure until the 2015 model year. For those
manufacturers who have not yet done so, this will allow additional time
to certify to the previously promulgated Federal Test Procedure-based
emission standards using either contract facilities or by obtaining in-
house capability.

DATES: Written comments must be received by May 29, 2007. Request for a
public hearing must be received by May 11, 2007. If we receive a
request for a public hearing, we will publish information related to
the timing and location of the hearing and the timing of a new deadline
for public comments.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0858, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include two
copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room: 3334, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0858. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Samulski, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-
4532; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register,
we are making these revisions as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because we view these revisions as noncontroversial and
anticipate no adverse comment.
    We have explained our reasons for these revisions in the preamble
to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not
take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse
comment on the rule, we will withdraw the direct final rule. We will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

II. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action will affect companies that manufacture and certify all-
terrain vehicles in the United States.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category             NAICS code \a\     affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          336999  Snowmobiles and all-
                                                  terrain vehicle
                                                  manufacturers.
Industry.......................          421110  Independent commercial
                                                  importers of vehicles
                                                  and parts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    To determine whether particular activities may be affected by this
action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct
questions regarding the applicability of this action as noted in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

III. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

IV. Summary of Rule

    In a rule published November 8, 2002, EPA promulgated new emission
standards for all terrain vehicles (ATVs) beginning in model year 2006.
In that rulemaking, a temporary provision was included allowing
manufacturers to certify ATV exhaust emissions over a steady-state,
engine-based, duty cycle prior to the 2009 model year in lieu of the
transient, chassis-based, Federal Test Procedure (FTP) which was
effective for 2006 and later model years. In the interim the
manufacturers, the California Air Resources Board, and EPA were to work
together to assess the in-use operating characteristics of ATVs,
determine whether the nature of this operation was transient or steady
state and, if workable, develop and agree upon an emission test cycle
which could replace both the engine-based steady state option and the
primary approach, the chassis-based FTP. This work did not result in a
mutually satisfactory outcome and agreement could not be reached on an
alternate testing approach. Therefore, as prescribed in the 2002 final
rule, the chassis-based FTP is to be the sole procedure for exhaust
emissions certification in the long term.
    As stated above, in the original rulemaking the steady state option
expired for the 2009 model year. While many manufacturers have
certified using the FTP not all have done so, since there was the
possibility of a replacement cycle. To provide appropriate certainty
and lead time, in this rulemaking we are proposing to extend the
availability of this temporary provision for an additional six model
years, after which the chassis-based FTP would become the only
available approach. More specifically, we are proposing that
manufacturers would have to certify exhaust emission engine families
representing not less than 50 percent of their U.S.-directed production
on the FTP in model year 2014 and 100 percent in 2015. Manufacturers
with only one ATV exhaust emission engine family would not be required
to use the FTP until the 2015 model year. For those manufacturers who
have not yet done so, this will allow additional time to certify on the
FTP by using contract facilities or by obtaining the in-house
capability and if a large manufacturer acquires the capability to run
the production line testing program.
    EPA does not expect that this revision will have any adverse cost
impact to the manufacturers in the long term. The requirement was
promulgated as part of the 2002 final rule and many off-shore
manufacturers and importers have already complied using excess inhouse
capability or contract facilities. We expect this extension will help
to ensure compliance costs are minimized and that the emission
reductions identified in the 2002 rule are achieved. Even the J1088
test cycle has reduced emissions significantly by eliminating ATVs
powered by high emitting two-stroke engines as a new product offering.
Adopting the FTP will help to ensure robust emission control in ATVs
using 4-stroke engines by including consideration of transient
operation and vehicle/engine operation over a wider variety of
conditions than that seen in the J1088 cycle.
    For additional discussion of the proposed rule changes, see the
direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of today's Federal Register. This proposal incorporates by
reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the
direct final rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. This
proposed rule merely gives an extension of time in which a temporary
optional test duty cycle may be used. There are no new costs associated
with this proposed rule relative to the original final rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This proposed rule does not include any new collection requirements, as
it merely gives an extension of time in which a temporary optional test
duty cycle may be used. There are no new paperwork requirements
associated with this rule. However, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR 1051; 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meet the definition for business based on SBA size standards at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive

economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This proposed rule would give an extension of time in which a
temporary optional test duty cycle may be used. We have therefore
concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for
all affected small entities and will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule contains no federal mandates for state, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector as defined by the
provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The proposed rule imposes no
enforceable duties on any of these governmental entities. Nothing in
the proposed rule would significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no
federal mandates that may result in expenditures of more than $100
million to the private sector in any single year. Thus, this rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 2020 and 205 of the UMRA.
This proposed rule merely gives an extension of time in which a
temporary optional test duty cycle may be used. EPA has determined that
this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. See the direct final rule EPA has
published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of today's Federal
Register for a more extensive discussion of UMRA policy.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule would give an
extension of the time in which a temporary optional test duty cycle may
be used. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    See the direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register for a more extensive
discussion of Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This proposed rule does not uniquely affect the communities of Indian
Tribal Governments. Further, no circumstances specific to such
communities exist that would cause an impact on these communities
beyond those discussed in the other sections of this rule. This
proposed rule would give an extension of the time in which a temporary
optional test duty cycle may be used. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule. See the direct final rule EPA has published in
the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register for a
more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13132.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant, and does not involve decisions on
environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect
children. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules
and Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register for a more
extensive discussion of Executive Order 13045.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule would give an extension of the time in which a
temporary optional test duty cycle may be used.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. This
proposed rule would merely give an extension of the time in which a
temporary optional test duty cycle may be used. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. See the
direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of today's Federal Register for a more extensive discussion of
NTTAA policy.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules
and Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register for a more
extensive discussion of Executive Order 13045.

K. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action comes from section 213 of
the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7547). This action is a notice
of proposed rulemaking subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act
section 307(d). See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1051

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Exhaust emission
testing, Recreational vehicle, All-terrain vehicle.

    Dated: April 19, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-2068 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47964-47966]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19535]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75594; File No. SR-EDGX-2015-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of EDGX Exchange, Inc.

August 4, 2015
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 28, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its schedule of fees and
rebates applicable to Members \5\ and non-Members of the Exchange
pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c) (``Fee Schedule'') to remove fee
code 5, which is appended to trades that inadvertently match against
each other and share the same Market Participant Identifier (``MPID'')
(``Internalized Trade'') during the Pre-Opening \6\ and Post-Closing
Sessions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
    \6\ The ``Pre-Opening Session'' is defined as ``the time between
8:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(r).
    \7\ The ``Post-Closing Session'' is defined as ``the time
between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to remove fee code
5, which is appended to Internalized Trade that add or remove liquidity
during the Pre-Opening and Post-Closing Sessions. Orders that yield fee
code 5 are changed [sic] a fee of $0.00045 per share in securities
priced at or above $1.00 and 0.15% of the dollar value of the trade in
securities priced below $1.00. During Regular Trading Hours,\8\ fee
code EA is appended to side of an Internalized Trade that adds
liquidity, while fee code ER is appended to the side of an Internalized
Trade that removes liquidity. Going forward, fee codes EA or ER will
also be appended to Internalized Trades during the Pre-Opening and
Post-Closing Sessions. Like fee code 5, orders that yield fee codes EA
or ER are charged a fee of $0.00045 per share in securities priced at
or above $1.00 and 0.15% of the dollar value of the trade in securities
priced below $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The ``Regular Trading Hours'' is defined as ``the time
between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the proposed removal of fee code 5, the Exchange
also proposes to: (i) remove reference to fee code 5 from footnote 7
and; (ii) delete footnote 10. Under footnote 7, if a Member adds an ADV
of at least 10,000,000 shares, then the Member's rate for fee codes 5,
EA, or ER decreases to $0.0001 per share per side. Fee codes EA and ER
would continue to remain eligible for the reduced fee under footnote 7.
Footnote 10 states that a Member's monthly volume attributed to fee
code 5 will be allocated accordingly between the added fee codes and
removal fee codes when determining whether that Member satisfied a
certain tier. The Exchange proposes to delete footnote 10 as it will no
longer be necessary once fee code 5 is deleted.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee
Schedule on August 3, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\10\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. Specifically, the Exchange believes it is equitable,
reasonable and non-discriminatory to delete fee code 5 because, going
forward, fee codes EA and ER will be applied to the applicable side of
an Internalized Trade. The proposed deletion of fee code 5 does not
amend the fees charged for Internalized Trades. Members would continue
to be charged identical fees for Internalized Trades occurring during
the Pre-Opening and Post-Closing sessions as the fees charged for fee
codes EA and ER are the same as fee code 5. The charge for Members
inadvertently matching with themselves will continue to be no more
favorable than the Exchange's maker/taker spread enabling the Exchange
to continue to discourage potential wash sales.\11\ In addition, the
Exchange believes it is equitable and reasonable to remove a reference
to fee code 5 in footnote 7 and delete footnote 10 as they are no
longer necessary in light of the deletion of fee code 5 from the
Exchange's Fee Schedule. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly
to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ The Exchange will continue to ensure that the fees
applicable to Internalized Trades are no more favorable than the
Exchange's prevailing maker/taker spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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. The proposed changes do not amend the
amount or application of any fee or rebate. Members would continue to
be charged identical fees for Internalized Trades occurring during the
Pre-Opening and Post-Closing sessions as the fees charged for fee codes
EA and ER are the same as those fees charged for orders that yielded
fee code 5.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2015-35 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-EDGX-2015-35. 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 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-EDGX-2015-35 and should be
submitted on or before August 31, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2015-19535 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46232]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF17-2-000]

Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 27, 2017, Bonneville Power
Administration submitted a Notice of Inadvertent Error in the July 31,
2017 BP-18 Wholesale Power Rate Filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 27, 2017.

    Dated: September 28, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21299 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24850-24852]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0935; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-243-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-
200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR,
and 747SP series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by several
reports of chafing of the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of
the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks
due to high vibration. These wire bundles can chafe through the wire
sleeving into the insulation, exposing the wire conductors. This
proposed AD would require replacing the wire bundles inside the
electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1
and 4 main fuel tanks with new, improved wire bundles inserted into
conduit liners. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing of the wire
bundles and subsequent arcing between the wiring and the electrical
conduit creating an ignition source in the fuel tanks, which could
result in a fire and consequent fuel tank explosion.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
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-2015-0935.

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-2015-
0935; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6505; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-0935;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-243-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received several reports of chafing of the wire bundles
inside the

electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1
and 4 main fuel tanks due to high vibration. These wire bundles can
chafe through the wire sleeving into the insulation, exposing the wire
conductors. These conditions, if not prevented, could result in arcing
between the wiring and the electrical conduit creating an ignition
source in the fuel tanks, which could result in a fire and consequent
fuel tank explosion.

Related AD

    AD 2011-15-03, Amendment 39-16750 (76 FR 41659, July 15, 2011),
superseded AD 97-26-07, Amendment 39-10250 (62 FR 65352, December 12,
1997), and continues to require repetitive inspections to detect damage
of the sleeving and wire bundles of the boost pumps of the numbers 1
and 4 main fuel tanks, and of the auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if
installed); replacement of any damaged sleeving with new sleeving; and
repair or replacement of any damaged wires with new wires. For
airplanes on which any burned wires are found, AD 2011-15-03 also
continues to require an inspection to detect damage of the conduit, and
replacement of any damaged conduit with a serviceable conduit. AD 2011-
15-03 reduced the initial compliance time and repetitive inspection
interval in AD 97-26-07. AD 2011-15-03 was prompted by fleet
information indicating that the repetitive inspection interval in AD
97-26-07 was too long because excessive chafing of the sleeving
continued to occur much earlier than expected between scheduled
inspections. Accomplishing the replacement specified in this proposed
AD would terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (n)
of AD 2011-15-03.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2306, dated
October 2, 2014. The service information describes procedures for
replacing the wire bundles of the electrical conduit inside the
electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost pumps of the numbers 1
and 4 main fuel tanks. This service information is reasonably available
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2015-0935. Or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service
information.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information identified previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 176 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                           Labor cost              Parts cost            Cost per product              Cost on U.S.  operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..........................  Up to 53 work[dash]hours x             $4,600   Up to $9,105....................  Up to $1,602,480.
                                        $85 per hour = $4,505.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0935; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-243-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 15, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2011-15-03, Amendment 39-16750 (76 FR 41659,
July 15, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in
any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2306, dated October 2, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by several reports of chafing of the wire
bundles inside the electrical conduit of the forward and aft boost
pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks due to high vibration.
These wire bundles can chafe through the wire sleeving into the
insulation, exposing the wire conductors. We are issuing this AD to
prevent chafing of the wire bundles and subsequent arcing between
the wiring and the electrical conduit creating an ignition source in
the fuel tanks, which could result in a fire and consequent fuel
tank explosion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace
the wire bundles inside the electrical conduit of the forward and
aft boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks with new,
improved wire bundles inserted into conduit liners, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-28A2306, dated October 2, 2014. Accomplishing the
replacement required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (n) of AD 2011-15-03, Amendment
39-16750 (76 FR 41659, July 15, 2011).

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 17, 2015.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10068 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P