[Federal Register: April 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 19672-19673]
[DOCID:fr15ap10-91]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-15]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary petition seeking relief from
specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petitions or their final disposition.

DATES: Comments on these petitions must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before May 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2009-
0968 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka L. Thomas,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
Ralen Gao,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 9, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2009-0968.
    Petitioner: AirMed International, LLC.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 135.364.

Description of Relief Sought

    AirMed International, LLC (AirMed) seeks relief from Sec.  135.364
which would allow AirMed to receive extended operations approval to
operate its Hawker Beechcraft on a planned route that exceeds 180
minutes flying time outside the continental United States.

[FR Doc. 2010-8579 Filed 4-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="30/06/2008 02:59:13 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30813-30814]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2018-37]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Avitas
Systems, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before July 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0263
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow

the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2018.
Lirio Liu,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0263.
    Petitioner: Avitas Systems, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Part 21; Sec. Sec.  36; 45.23(b);
61.113(a) & (b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.103; 91.105(a)(2)(b); 91.107;
91.109; 91.119; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) & (b); 91.205; 91.405(a);
91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); 91.417(a) & (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner, a subsidiary of
General Electric Company, is seeking an exemption pursuant to Section
2210 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, to
commercially operate unmanned aircraft systems, including the greater
than 55 pounds Pulse Aero VAPOR 55 rotorcraft, over private property
and beyond visual line of sight for aerial monitoring of oil and gas
facilities in a specific rural location in support of activities
described in Section 2210, paragraph (b). The inspection of oil and gas
facilities will occur during day.

[FR Doc. 2018-13988 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12212-12213]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0059]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative
Feedback on Agency Service Delivery

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

ACTION: Notice of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of
information collection and solicitation of public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below will be submitted to the OMB for review. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
burden. A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting public comments on the following information collection was
published on December 22, 2010 (75 FR 80542).

DATES: Please send your comments by April 4, 2011. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Ronk, Program Manager,
FMCSA, Office of Enforcement and Program Delivery, Outreach Division/
MC-ESO. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Department of

Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Cem Hatipoglu,
Transportation Specialist Technology Division/MC-RRT, Office of
Analysis, Research and Technology, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Department of Transportation, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2126-xxxx.
    Title: Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service
Delivery.
    Form No.: None.
    Type of Review: New information collection request.
    Respondents: State and local agencies, general public and
stakeholders, original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and suppliers to
the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) industry, fleets, owner-operators,
state CMV safety agencies, research organizations and contractors, news
organizations, safety advocate groups, and other Federal agencies.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 14,100.
    Estimated Time per Response: Range from 5-30 minutes.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 3,450.
    Frequency of Collection: Generally, on an annual basis.
    Abstract: Executive Order 12862 ``Setting Customer Service
Standards,'' direct Federal agencies to provide service to the public
that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private
sector (58 FR 48257, Sept. 11, 1993). In order to work continuously to
ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs,
FMCSA seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect
qualitative feedback from our customers on our service delivery. The
surveys covered in this generic clearance will provide a means for
FMCSA to collect this data direct from our customers. The information
collected from our customers and stakeholders will help ensure that
users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience with
FMCSA's programs. This feedback will provide insights into customer or
stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early
warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where
communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery
of products or services. It will also allow feedback to contribute
directly to the improvement of program management. The responses to the
surveys will be voluntary and will not involve information that is
required by regulations.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Department of Transportation,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Docket Library, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503, or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are Invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department of Transportation (DOT), including whether the
information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the DOT's
estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB
is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of
this notice.

    Issued on: February 25, 2011.
Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-4921 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2166-2170]
[DOCID:fr14ja10-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61295; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-098]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Exchange Fees for Fiscal Year 2010

January 6, 2010.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 30, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 CBOE. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a
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 proposal 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

    CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to make various changes
for Fiscal Year 2010. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), on the
Commission's Web site (http://www.sec.gov), at the Exchange's principal
office, 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, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CBOE 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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the CBOE Fees
Schedule to make various fee changes. The proposed changes are the
product of the Exchange's annual budget review. The fee changes were
approved by the Exchange's Board of Directors pursuant to CBOE Rule
2.22 and will take effect on January 4, 2010. The Exchange proposes to
amend certain fees, eliminate several fees to simplify the Fees
Schedule, and clarify the Fees Schedule in several respects. The
Exchange also seeks to establish fees for transactions in S&P 500
Dividend Index (DVS) options.
    A. The Exchange proposes to amend the following fees:
    Index Options Transaction Fees: The Exchange proposes to amend
customer, voluntary professional and broker-dealer transaction fees for
certain index options to create consistent fees for similar products
and to simplify the fee structure for index options. The Exchange
proposes to increase the customer (``C'' origin code) transaction fee
in S&P 100 options (OEX and XEO) from $.30 per contract to $.40 per
contract, which is the same rate charged to customers for certain other
CBOE proprietary index options (Dow Jones Industrial Average (DXL) and
volatility index options). The Exchange proposes to reduce the customer
transaction fee for Morgan Stanley Retail Index (MVR) options from $.40
per contract to $.18 per contract.
    The Exchange proposes to increase the voluntary professional (``W''
origin code) transaction fee in OEX options from $.20 per contract to
$.40 per contract and in XEO options from $.30 per contract to $.40 per
contract.\5\ The Exchange proposes to increase the broker-dealer \6\
transaction fee in OEX and XEO options from $.30 per contract to $.40
per contract. Currently, broker-dealer transaction fees for volatility
index options are $.25 per contract for manual executions and $.45 per
contract for electronic executions. The Exchange proposes to charge
$.40 per contract for manual and electronic broker-dealer executions in
volatility index options. Broker-dealer transaction fees are currently
$.25 per contract for MVR options. The Exchange proposes to increase
the broker-dealer transaction fee for electronic executions in MVR
options to $.45 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission notes that on December 24, 2009, CBOE filed a
proposed rule change relating to fees for professional orders that
also would become operative on January 4, 2010. See SR-CBOE-2009-
101.
    \6\ Broker-Dealer transaction fees apply to broker-dealer orders
(orders with ``B'' origin code), non-member market-maker orders
(orders with ``N'' origin code) and orders from specialists in the
underlying security (orders with ``Y'' origin code). See CBOE Fees
Schedule, Footnote 16. Broker-dealer transaction fees also apply to
certain orders with ``F'' origin code, specifically, orders from OCC
members that are not CBOE members. The Exchange proposes to clarify
Footnote 16 in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ETF Options Transaction Fees: The Exchange proposes to amend
broker-dealer transaction fees for certain ETF options to create
consistent fees for similar products and to simplify the fee structure
for ETF options. Currently, the broker-dealer transaction fee in QQQQ
(PowerShares QQQ Trust) options and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 Index
Fund) options is $.25 per contract. The Exchange proposes to increase
the broker-dealer transaction fee for electronic executions in QQQQ and
IWM options to $.45 per contract.
    Surcharge Fees: The Exchange currently charges a $.06 per contract
surcharge fee on all non-public customer \7\ transactions in OEX, XEO,
SPX and volatility index options. The Exchange proposes to increase the
surcharge fee for OEX, XEO and SPX options to $.10 per contract and for
volatility index options to $.08 per contract. The surcharge fee is
assessed to help the Exchange recoup license fees the Exchange pays to
index licensors for the right to list these products for trading and is
similar to surcharge fees charged by other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Surcharge Fee applies to all non-public customer
transactions (i.e. CBOE and non-member market-maker, member firm and
broker-dealer), including voluntary professionals and linkage orders
except for satisfaction orders. See CBOE Fees Schedule, Section 1
(Index Options) and Footnote 14. The Commission notes that on
December 24, 2009, CBOE filed a proposed rule change relating to
fees for professional orders that also would become operative on
January 4, 2010. See SR-CBOE-2009-101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Floor Brokerage Fees: The Exchange currently charges floor brokers
executing orders in OEX, SPX and DXL options $.04 per contract and $.02
per contract for crossed orders. The Exchange proposes to charge floor
brokers executing orders in volatility index options $.02 per contract
and $.01 per contract for crossed orders.
    Cabinet Trade Transaction Fees: The Exchange has traditionally not
assessed transaction fees for accommodation liquidations (``cabinet
trades'').\8\ Cabinet trades refer to trades in listed options that are
worthless or not actively traded. Due to the expansion of option
classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program, the Exchange has
found it increasingly difficult to distinguish cabinet trades from
trades in Penny Pilot options classes for purposes of this fee waiver
program. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the fee waiver
and begin assessing transaction fees for cabinet trades effective
January 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Strategy Fee Cap: The Exchange currently caps market-maker, firm,
and broker-dealer transaction fees associated with dividend, merger and
short stock interest strategies, as described in Footnote 13 of the
CBOE Fees Schedule.\9\ Transaction fees are capped at $1,000 for all
such strategies executed on the same trading day in the same options
class, and are further capped at $50,000 per month per initiating
member or firm. The Exchange proposes to reduce the per month per
initiating member or firm cap from $50,000 to $25,000. The proposed fee
cap reduction would enable the Exchange to remain competitive for these
types of

strategies and is similar to strategy fee caps at other options
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Strategy Fee Cap is in effect as a pilot program that is
due to expire on March 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Customer Large Trade Discount Program: Customer (``C'' origin code)
transaction fees are capped for large trades in index, ETF and HOLDRs
options.\10\ Currently, the Exchange charges only the first 7,500
contracts of a customer order in volatility index options. The Exchange
proposes to charge only the first 5,000 contracts of a customer order
in volatility index options in order to attract additional order flow
to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Section 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Membership Application Fees: Membership application fees are set
forth in Section 11 of the CBOE Fees Schedule as well as in a
regulatory circular (``Membership Fees Circular''). The Exchange
proposes to amend certain membership application fees as reflected in
the Fees Schedule and Membership Fees Circular included as part of
Exhibit 5. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the Non-
Member Customer Business Fee from $1,000 to $2,500, the Lessor Firm Fee
from $1,000 to $2,000, and the Renewal/Change of Status Fee from $250
to $500. The proposed changes would help the Exchange recover its costs
in processing these applications.
    B. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the following fees (with one
exception as noted below):
    Customer Complex Order Fee: The Exchange proposes to eliminate the
transaction fee of $.18 per contract for customer complex orders in
equity and QQQQ options that ``take liquidity'' from the Exchange's
complex order book.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Section 1 and Footnote 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Member Firm Proprietary Sliding Scale--License Fee Add-On: The
Exchange's Member Firm Proprietary Sliding Scale program reduces a
member firm's standard $.20 per contract transaction fee if the member
firm reaches the volume thresholds set forth in the sliding scale in a
month.\12\ Due to the Exchange's obligation to pay license fees on
certain products, the Exchange currently assesses a $.10 per contract
license fee (a total of 10 cents per contract less any surcharge fees
already assessed) on all licensed products except Nasdaq-100 (MNX, NDX)
and Russell 2000 (RUT) options when a firm reaches the fifth tier of
the sliding scale. The Exchange proposes to eliminate this license fee
add-on to simplify the Fees Schedule. The Exchange will continue to
charge the surcharge fees set forth in Section 1 (Index Options) of the
Fees Schedule on trades in licensed products when a firm reaches the
fifth tier of the sliding scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Section 1 and Footnote 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Miscellaneous Fees: The following fees are proposed to be
eliminated as they are outdated and/or the Exchange has determined no
longer to charge them: Installation, Relocation and Removal fees for
single line phones under Section 8(F)(2) of the Fees Schedule;
Installation, Relocation and Removal fees for Thomson\13\ market data
trading floor terminals, fees for Thomson's NYSE OpenBook data, and the
Installation fee of $500 for satellite TV under Section 8(F)(10) of the
Fees Schedule; Trade Processing Services fees (Electronic Output/Input
Services and Market-Maker Paper Ticket Fees) under Section 9 of the
Fees Schedule, except for the $.0025 per contract side fee for matched
and unmatched data; Fees for electronic and paper filing of FOCUS
reports under Section 12 of the Fees Schedule; Fee for a service
provided to member firms by the Exchange to facilitate member firm
payments to floor brokers for except for the [sic]\14\ floor brokerage
services (Floor Broker Payment Program) under Section 13 of the Fees
Schedule; Pass-through of periodic license or royalty fees, the fee for
a hard copy subscription to the Exchange Bulletin, and the CFLEX Log-in
fee under Section 15 (Miscellaneous) of the Fees Schedule; and Circuit
Charges under Section 16 of the Fees Schedule.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange also proposes to replace the reference to
``ILX'' in Section 8 of the Fees Schedule with ``Thomson'' to
reflect the replacement of the ILX service with Thomson's service.
ILX is a division of Thomson Financial.
    \14\ The Exchange inadvertently included the phrase ``except for
the'' in its filing with the Commission and intended the text of
this portion of the ``Miscellaneous Fees'' section to read: ``[f]ee
for a service provided to member firms by the Exchange to facilitate
member firm payments to floor brokers for floor brokerage services
(Floor Broker Payment Program) under Section 13 of the Fees Schedule
* * *.'' Telephone call between Geoffrey Pemble, Special Counsel,
Commission, and Jaime Galvan, Senior Attorney, CBOE, January 5,
2010.
    \15\ The Exchange also proposes the following clean-up changes
to the Fees Schedule. The Exchange proposes to delete references to
the CBOE S&P 500 BuyWrite Index (1/10th value) (``BXO'') and CBOE
S&P 500 Three-Month Realized Volatility (``RUH'') from Section 1
(Index Options) to the Fees Schedule since the Exchange no longer
trades these two classes. See also SR-CBOE-2009-054 (deleting RUH
and BXO references from Footnote 6 to Fees Schedule). The Exchange
also proposes to delete the ``CBOEdirect Connectivity Fees'' line
item from Section 17 because those fees are now located in Section
16 of the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. The Exchange proposes the following Fees Schedule
clarifications:
    Floor Brokerage Fees: The Exchange proposes to clarify Footnote 5
of the Fees Schedule relating to floor brokerage fees in three
respects. First, the Exchange proposes to delete the sentence regarding
assessment of the fee to Designated Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs'')
because DPMs no longer have an agency function. Second, the Exchange
proposes to clarify that if a market-maker executes an order for an
account in which the market-maker is not a registered participant as
reflected in the Exchange's Membership Department records, the market-
maker will be assessed a floor brokerage fee. Third, the Exchange
proposes to clarify that order ID data is not required to be the same
on both the buy and sell side of an order in order to be eligible for
the discounted ``crossed'' rate.
    Disputed Charges: The Exchange proposes to add to the Fees Schedule
as Footnote 7 a statement that after three months, all fees as assessed
by the Exchange are considered final by the Exchange. The purpose of
this change is to encourage members to promptly review their Exchange
invoices so that any disputed charges can be addressed in a timely
manner.
    Member Firm Proprietary Sliding Scale: The Exchange proposes to
clarify Footnote 11 of the Fees Schedule relating to the Member Firm
Proprietary Sliding Scale in three respects. First, the Exchange
proposes to amend Footnote 11 to clarify that each member firm is
responsible for notifying the Exchange's Membership Department of all
of its affiliations with other members so that contracts of the firm
and its affiliates may be aggregated for purposes of the sliding scale.
Second, the Exchange proposes to clarify that it will aggregate the
activity of separate member firms for purposes of the sliding scale if
there is at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected
on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, which is the same way Exchange
aggregates trading activity for the Liquidity Provider Sliding
Scale.\16\ Third, the Exchange proposes to clarify that a member firm's
contracts executed pursuant to an OCC Clearing Member Trade Assignment
(CMTA) agreement (i.e., executed by another clearing firm and then
transferred to the member firm's account at the OCC) are aggregated
with the member firm's non-CMTA contracts for purposes of the sliding
scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Position Transfer Fee: The Exchange charges a fee of $.02 per
contract side for options positions transferred pursuant to Rule
6.49A.\17\ The fee helps

offset costs the Exchange incurs in providing services to accommodate
both on-floor and off-floor transfers of positions.\18\ The fee is
capped at $25,000 per transfer. The Exchange proposes to clarify the
application of the $25,000 fee cap. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to clarify that for all on-floor transfers, both the position
transferor (seller) and the transferee (buyer) are assessed a fee of
$.02 per contract with a cap of $12,500 for each. If there are multiple
transferees (buyers), each transferee is assessed a fee of $.02 per
contract up to the $12,500 cap for the transferee side of the transfer
package. For any off-floor transfer where regulatory review of a
proposed transfer is solicited to determine whether the proposed
transfer meets the off-floor transfer provisions of Rule 6.49A, the
initiator of the review is assessed a fee of $.02 per contract with a
cap of $25,000. If it is determined the position transfer must be
affected on-floor, only the on-floor fee will be assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ CBOE Rule 6.49A provides for a special procedure to permit
option positions to be offered on the floor of the Exchange in the
event that the positions are being transferred as part of a sale or
disposition of all or substantially all of the assets or options
positions of the transferring party where the transferring party
would not continue to be involved in managing or owning the
transferred positions. The rule also provides for off-floor
transfers of positions based on certain specified exemptions, as
well as with the approval of the Exchange's President under
extraordinary circumstances.
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59193 (January 2,
2009), 74 FR 972 (January 9, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Customer Large Trade Discount Program: The Exchange proposes to
amend Section 18 of the Fees Schedule to clarify the calculation of the
fee cap. The Exchange proposes to clarify that it will look at the
trade date and order ID on each trade record to determine the
qualification of an order for the fee cap. The order ID on each trade
record must be the same in order for the Exchange to tie the trade
records to the same order and accumulate the total contracts. The
Exchange also proposes to clarify that for complex orders, the total
contracts of an order (all legs) are counted for purposes of
calculating the fee cap.
    D. The Exchange proposes to establish fees for DVS options.
    The Exchange recently received approval to list and trade options
on the S&P 500 Dividend Index, which represents the accumulated ex-
dividend amounts of all S&P 500 Index component securities over a
specified accrual period (e.g., quarterly, semi-annually,
annually).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61136 (December 10,
2009) (approving SR-CBOE-2009-022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the changes being proposed in this filing, the
amount of the transactions fees for DVS options shall be as follows:
     $0.20 per contract for Market-Maker and Designated Primary
Market-Maker transactions; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This is the standard rate that is subject to the Liquidity
Provider Sliding Scale as set forth in Footnote 10 to the Fees
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $0.20 per contract for member firm proprietary
transactions;
     $0.40 per contract for manually executed broker-dealer
transactions;
     $0.40 per contract for electronically executed broker-
dealer transactions;
     $0.40 per contract for voluntary professional
transactions;\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Commission notes that on December 24, 2009, CBOE filed
a proposed rule change relating to fees for professional orders that
also would become operative on January 4, 2010. See SR-CBOE-2009-
101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $0.40 per contract for customer transactions; and
     $0.10 per contract CFLEX surcharge fee.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a $.10 per contract surcharge
fee on all non-public customer transactions in DVS options to help the
Exchange recoup license fees the Exchange pays to the reporting
authority. The proposed surcharge fee is identical to the surcharge fee
proposed to be increased from $0.06 per contract to $0.10 for non-
public customer transactions in OEX, XEO and SPX options.
    The Exchange's Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale shall apply to
transaction fees in DVS options, but the Exchange's marketing fee\22\
shall not apply. The Exchange believes the rule change will further the
Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that are
competitively priced.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Footnote 6 of the Fees Schedule.
    \23\ Linkage order fees are inapplicable for options on CBOE's
proprietary products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\24\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)\25\ of the Act
in particular, in that 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. The Exchange believes
the proposed index and ETF options transaction fee changes and floor
brokerage fee change would create consistent fees for similar products
and help to simplify the fee structure for these options. The proposed
changes to the Strategy Fee Cap and Customer Large Trade Discount
Program would result in reduced fees for market participants. The
proposed changes to surcharge fees and membership application fees
would help the Exchange recover costs. The Exchange believes the
proposed fee eliminations and Fees Schedule clarifications would update
and simplify the Fees Schedule. With respect to establishing fees for
DVS options, the Exchange believes the new fees proposed by this filing
are equitable and reasonable in that they will further the Exchange's
goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that are
competitively priced and will help the Exchange recoup license fees
that the Exchange pays to the reporting authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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 solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \26\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\27\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2009-098 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-CBOE-2009-098. 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 inspection and
copying 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2009-098 and should be
submitted on or before February 4, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-537 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47047-47053]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0390; Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD; Amendment
39-19397; AD 2018-18-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
revision of an airworthiness limitation items (ALI) document. This AD
requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate the specified maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

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-2018-
0390; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A300
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11,
2018 (83 FR 21955). The NPRM was prompted by a revision of an ALI
document. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the specified
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.
    We are issuing this AD to address the reduced structural integrity
of the airplane and possible loss of controllability of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Some airworthiness limitations previously defined in A300 ALS
[Airworthiness Limitations Section] Part 1 have been removed from
that document and should normally be included in an ALS Part 4.
Airbus does not plan to issue an ALS Part 4 for A300 aeroplanes.
    Nevertheless, failure to comply with these airworthiness
limitations could result in an unsafe condition.
    For the reason described above, it has been decided to require
the application of these airworthiness limitations through a
separate AD.
    Previously, EASA issued AD 2013-0210 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2014-16-13, Amendment 39-17937 (79 FR 51083, August 27, 2014)
(``AD 2014-16-13'')] to require implementation of airworthiness
limitations applicable to main landing gear (MLG) barrel assembly,
retraction actuator assembly, linkage assembly and flanged duct,
which were previously defined in Revision 00 of A300 ALS Part 1 but
removed from Revision 01 of A300 ALS Part 1, adding those limits as
an Appendix to the AD.
    Since EASA AD 2013-0210 was issued, improvement of safe life
component selection resulted, among others, in removal of 15 nose
landing gear (NLG) parts from Revision 02 of A300 ALS Part 1.
    Consequently, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD
2013-0210, which is superseded, and requires, in addition to the
implementation of airworthiness limitations already contained in
EASA AD 2013-0210, the implementation of airworthiness limitations
applicable to NLG barrel assembly and shock absorber assembly,
previously contained in Revision 01 of A300 ALS Part 1, as specified
in Appendix 1 of this AD.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0390.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Supersede AD 2014-16-13

    Airbus questioned the need to keep AD 2014-16-13 and whether the
proposed AD should instead supersede AD 2014-16-13. Airbus noted that
the proposed AD lists all of the ALIs in EASA AD 2017-0145, dated
August 31, 2017, not just the ALIs that have been updated since we
issued AD 2014-16-13. We infer that Airbus wanted the proposed AD
changed to a supersedure AD.
    We disagree with the request to change this AD to a supersedure AD.
To address the unsafe condition, we chose to match EASA AD 2017-0145,
dated August 31, 2017, and include the same ALIs. Because
accomplishment of the requirements of this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2014-16-13, a supersedure is not necessary. We have
not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Release Related ADs at the Same Time

    Airbus requested that we release this final rule at the same time
as the following related ADs to provide clarity to operators. All four
pending ADs are related to the same removal of 15 nose landing gear
parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.
     Docket No. FAA-2018-0364, Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-
AD (EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017).
     Docket No. FAA-2018-0365, Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-
AD (EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017).
     Docket No. FAA-2018-0396, Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-
AD (EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017).
    We agree with the request insofar as we can control the publication
schedule. While we cannot ensure that all four will be published on the
same date, we will coordinate with the Office of the Federal Register
(OFR) and attempt to issue all four final rules at the same time.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the

Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition
period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs
applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2018-18-18 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19397; Docket No. FAA-2018-0390;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-16-13, Amendment 39-17937 (79 FR 51083,
August 27, 2014) (``AD 2014-16-13'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C,
B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness
limitation items (ALI) document. We are issuing this AD to prevent
reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible loss of
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
safe life limits included in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
The initial compliance time for the replacements is prior to the
applicable life limits specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of
this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later. The term ``FH'' in figure 1 to paragraph (g)
of this AD means total flight hours. The term ``LDG'' in figure 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD means total airplane landings.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE18.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE18.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE18.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18SE18.004

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2014-16-13

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2014-16-13.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0390.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 24, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19854 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11694-11695]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05908]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0120]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; River Rouge, Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to authorize the Conrail Railroad
Bridge, mile 1.48, across the River Rouge, to be operated remotely. The
request was made by the bridge owner. This proposed rule will test the
remote operations with tenders onsite, and will not change the
operating schedule of the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 24, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0120 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist,
Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD 85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The River Rouge discharges into the Detroit River at the south end
of the city of Detroit, about 2 miles above Fighting Island. A Federal
project has improved River Rouge to create a turning basin about 2.5
miles above the entrance. With the exception of a few pleasure vessels
the channel is almost exclusively used by large commercial vessels to
access various industries along the river. All four drawbridges over
the river are required to open on signal and are manned 24-hours a day,
7-days a week. The River Rouge supports foreign and domestic trade in
steel production, cement, petroleum refinery, aggregate, and other bulk
commodities imported or exported by vessels. The River Rouge is not
listed as an American Heritage River; however, the Detroit River is
designated an American Heritage River and a Canadian Heritage River.
    The Conrail Railroad Bridge is a single leaf bascule bridge. A
horizontal navigation clearance of 123 feet is available. Eight feet of
vertical clearance, referred to LWD is available in the closed
position. The Conrail Bridge is advertised as having unlimited
clearance in the open position; however, the tip of the bridge leaf
does encroach slightly into the northern boundary of the navigation
channel. The Federal Channel has a bend in the river immediately west
of the Conrail Bridge. Because of this bend most large commercial
vessels will not enter the river unless they have conformation that
this bridge is opened.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this NPRM under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This notice proposes a new rule for the regulations to allow the
Conrail Bridge to operate remotely.
    Bridge owners are required to provide necessary drawtenders for the
safe and prompt opening of a bridge and to respond to visual, sound, or
radiotelephone communications for openings; unless, authorized by the
U.S. Coast Guard District Commander to operate remotely.
    Conrail installed the following equipment at the bridge to be
considered for remote operations: A public address system that allows
2-way voice communication between vessels and the remote tender; eight
digital cameras; two thermal imagery cameras looking upriver and
downriver to detect vessels in reduced visibility; and remotely
operated VHF-FM Marine Radiotelephone that monitors Channel 16 and
Channel 12. All of the listed equipment uses fiber optic technologies
to connect to the remote tender. During the comment period a tender
will be required to be physically at the bridge to evaluate the remote
operations and to intervene if there is a failure in the remote
abilities. If this rule is approved, then the bridge will be operated
remotely from Mount Laurel, NJ but can also be operated from Detroit,
MI, if needed. If there is a discrepancy with the remote equipment
Conrail estimates it will take 60-minutes for a tender to arrive at the
bridge.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge and the bridge will continue to
open on signal.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because
the bridge will continue to open on signal.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a
Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  117.645 to part 117 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.645   River Rouge

    The draw of the Conrail Bridge, mile 1.48, is remotely operated, is
required to operate a radiotelephone, and shall open on signal.

    Dated: March 22, 2019.
J.M. Nunan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-05908 Filed 3-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71695-71696]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24889]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90344; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rules To Reflect Name Changes to
Two FINRA Departments: The Office of Dispute Resolution and the
Department of Registration and Disclosure

November 4, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 29, 2020, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as concerned solely with the
administration of the self-regulatory organization under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA rules to reflect name changes to
two FINRA departments: (1) The Office of Dispute Resolution and (2) the
Department of Registration and Disclosure. Specifically, the proposed
rule change would amend the General Standards, the Code of Arbitration
Procedure, the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes, the
Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes, and the Code of
Mediation Procedure to replace any references to ``Office of Dispute
Resolution'' with ``FINRA Dispute Resolution Services.'' The proposed
rule change would also amend the Books, Records and Reports, the Code
of Procedure, and the Funding Portal Rules to replace any references to
``Department of Registration and Disclosure'' (also referred to as
``RAD'' in FINRA rules) with ``Credentialing, Registration, Education
and Disclosure'' (also referred to as ``CRED'' in FINRA rules). The
proposed rule change would also replace any references to ``RAD'' with
``CRED.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    In March 2017, FINRA launched FINRA360, a comprehensive self-
evaluation and organizational improvement initiative to ensure that
FINRA is operating as the most effective self-regulatory organization
it can be, working to protect investors and promote market integrity in
a manner that supports strong and vibrant capital markets. In
connection with this ongoing initiative, FINRA has sought feedback from
its members, as well as investors, investor advocates, regulators,
trade associations and FINRA employees. FINRA has analyzed the feedback
received from these stakeholders and as a result has made significant
changes across the organization.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See FINRA, Progress Report on FINRA360 (June 2019), https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/finra360-progress-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office of Dispute Resolution administers an arbitration and
mediation forum for investors and brokerage firms and their registered
employees while RAD manages, among other matters, the registration of
these firms and their employees. As part of FINRA360, FINRA refined the
name of its arbitration and mediation forum to FINRA Dispute Resolution
Services to more closely describe its key functions, to highlight the
customer service it provides, and to feature the independence and
impartiality of the forum. FINRA also refined the name of RAD to
Credentialing, Registration, Education and Disclosure to better
describe the totality of functions it performs on behalf of FINRA for
its stakeholders.
    The proposed rule change would amend FINRA rules to reflect these
name changes.
Proposed Amendments
    The proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rules 0160
(Definitions), 10308 (Selection of Arbitrators), 10312 (Disclosures
Required of Arbitrators and Director's Authority to Disqualify), 10314
(Initiation of Proceedings), 12100 (Definitions), 12103 (Director of
Office of Dispute Resolution), 12701 (Settlement), 13100 (Definitions),
13103 (Director of Office of Dispute Resolution), 13701 (Settlement)
and 14100 (Definitions) to replace references to ``Office of Dispute
Resolution'' with ``FINRA Dispute Resolution Services.''
    The proposed rule change would also amend FINRA Funding Portal Rule
900 (Code of Procedure) and FINRA Rules 4530 (Reporting Requirements),
9521 (Purpose and Definitions), 9522 (Initiation of Eligibility
Proceeding: Member Regulation Consideration), and 9524 (National
Adjudicatory Council Consideration) to replace references to
``Department of Registration and Disclosure'' with ``Credentialing,
Registration, Education and Disclosure'' and any references to ``RAD''
with ``CRED.''
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The effective date will be the date of the filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in

general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change will update FINRA rules to reflect recent name changes to
two FINRA departments, thereby bringing clarity and consistency to
FINRA rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would
bring clarity and consistency to FINRA rules without affecting the
numerous services and benefits provided by the forum or the cost to any
party to use it.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-FINRA-2020-039 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2020-039. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be
posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that
we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
FINRA-2020-039 and should be submitted on or before December 1, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24889 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


TABLE 2: AVERAGE ANNUAL EPA RESOURCE REQUIREMENT FOR METAL FURNITURE SURFACE COATING FACILITIES ( SUBPART EE)

( A) ( B) ( C) a ( D) ( E) b Activity EPA hr/ Occurrences EPA hr/ Plants/ EPA Occurr. Plant/ year Plant/ year year Hr/ yr ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Initial Performance Test 12 1 12 30 360 Repeat Performance Test 12 0.2c 4.8 30 144 Notification of construction 2 1 2 30 60 Notification of anticip. .5 1 0.5 30 15 startup Notification of actual .5 1 0.5 30 15 startup Review test results 8 1.2d 9.6 30 288 Excess Emission 4 4 16 30 480 report TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 1,362 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTd $ 50,938 TOTAL ANNUAL COST TO THE EPA a. A x B = C.

b. C x D = E. c. Assume 20% of initial performance tests must be repeated due to failure.

d. Assume an hourly wage for a GS 10 step 1 employee of of $ 17.81 plus 110% overhead cost, which equals $ 37.40. This amount was multiplied by the hours per year in the column E.


January 18, 2007

Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC  20460-0001

Re: Chloropicrin Risk Assessment Comments

To Whom It May Concern:

The following information is being provided in response to Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0661 for the chloropicrin risk assessment.

The Kern County Agricultural Commission’s fumigant permitting
documents* state that specify buffer zone requirements for chloropicrin
applications near sensitive areas, defined as residential areas,
hospitals, labor camps, or other areas designated by the commissioner.
Schools are categorized separately for chloropicrin applications.  A
buffer zone of up to 1 mile is required near a school and up to one half
mile near a sensitive area, depending on the application method
(injection or drip) and subsequent sealing method (water seal, tarp, bed
shaper, etc.).    However, if a sensitive area is unoccupied, the field
receiving fumigant applications is exempt from the buffer zone
requirements and applications may occur to the property line.

This being said, we would like to bring to your attention a common
practice employed by the California carrot industry with regard to
fumigant application.  When fields near residences are to be fumigated,
the practice is to offer to arrange for the residents to stay in a hotel
until fumigation has been completed, thereby eliminating the possibility
of exposure.

We ask that this information be included in the comments for the
Chloropicrin risk assessment on behalf of the California Fresh Carrot
Advisory Board.

Sincerely,

Robert Schramm

* Kern County Chloropicrin Permit Conditions (May 2004).