[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60431-60432]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24216]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0878; FRL-9364-4]

Agrobacterium radiobacter strains K84/Kerr-84 and K1026; Notice
of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's final
registration review decision for the pesticide Agrobacterium
radiobacter strains K84/Kerr-84 and K1026, case 4101. Registration
review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure
that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for
registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended
function without causing unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: Ann Sibold,
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Kevin Costello, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-5026; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0878, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    In accordance with 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the
availability of EPA's final registration review decision for
Agrobacterium radiobacter strains K84/Kerr-84 and K1026, case 4101.
When used as a microbial pest control agent in seed, root, and stem
treatments of nonbearing fruit, nut, and ornamental plants,
Agrobacterium radiobacter is intended to protect treated plants from
Crown Gall, which is caused by the plant pathogen, Agrobacterium
tumefaciens. Both strains of Agrobacterium radiobacter control
Agrobacterium tumefaciens through direct competition, which is
primarily accomplished by the production of agrocin 84, a bacteriocin
produced by both Agrobacterium radiobacter strain K84 and strain K1026
that is specific for certain pathogenic strains of Agrobacterium spp.
Bacteriocins are peptides that are produced by certain bacteria, and
are known to inhibit the growth of other bacteria.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision is
the Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet,
the standard for registration in FIFRA. EPA has considered
Agrobacterium radiobacter strains K84/Kerr-84 and K1026 in light of the
FIFRA standard for registration. The Agrobacterium radiobacter strains
K84/Kerr-84 and K1026 Final Decision document in the docket describes
the Agency's rationale for issuing a registration review final decision
for this pesticide.
    In addition to the final registration review decision document, the
registration review docket for Agrobacterium radiobacter strains K84/
Kerr-84 and K1026 also includes other relevant documents related to the
registration review of this case. The proposed registration review
decision was posted to the docket and the public was invited to submit
any comments or

new information. During the 60-day comment period, no public comments
were received.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case
docket for Agrobacterium radiobacter strains K84/Kerr-84 and K1026 will
remain open until all actions required in the final decision have been
completed.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review. Links to earlier
documents related to the registration review of this pesticide are
provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/agrobacterium_radiobacter/index.html.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 3(g) of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, provide
authority for this action.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Registration review, Pesticides and
pests.

    Dated: September 25, 2012.
Keith A. Matthews,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-24216 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11985-11986]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04063]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0566; FRL-10005-90-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Water Quality Certification Regulations
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Water Quality Certification
Regulations (EPA ICR No. 2603.03, OMB Control No. 2040-0295) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This is a proposed
revision of an ICR, which is currently approved through February 29,
2020. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register on November 27, 2019 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 30,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OW-2019-0566, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Kasparek, Oceans, Wetlands, and
Communities Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, (MC
4504T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR describes the cost and burden associated with 40
CFR 121, the regulations that implement Clean Water Act (CWA) section
401. Under

section 401, a federal agency may not issue a permit or license that
may result in any discharge into waters of the United States unless the
certifying authority where the discharge would originate issues a
section 401 water quality certification verifying that the discharge
will comply with certain water quality requirements or waives the
certification requirement. CWA section 401 requires project proponents
to submit project specific information to certifying authorities.
Certifying authorities may act on project specific information by
either granting, granting with conditions, denying, or waiving section
401 certification. CWA section 401 requires certifying authorities to
submit information to the relevant federal licensing or permitting
agency to indicate the action taken on a request for certification. If
the certifying authority fails or refuses to act on a request for
certification, within a reasonable period of time (which shall not
exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification
requirements of this subsection shall be waived with respect to such
Federal application. The EPA is also responsible for providing
notification to certain neighboring or downstream states and tribes
affected by a discharge from a federally licensed or permitted project
under section 401(a)(2). Information collected directly collected by
the EPA under section 401 in support of the section 402 permit program
is already captured under an existing ICR (OMB Control Number 2040-
0004, EPA ICR Number 0229.23) and therefore is not included in this
analysis.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Applicants (Project Proponents) for
certain federal licenses and permits; Certifying Authorities including
states, territories, and authorized tribes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Project Proponents: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit (33 U.S.C. 1341). Certifying Authorities:
Not mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 97,119 (total).
    Frequency of response: Per Federal Application.
    Total estimated burden: 1,067,000 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $64 million (per year), includes $8 million
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 739,000 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. There is an increase in the total estimated respondent
burden, number of respondents, and number of responses compared with
the ICR currently approved by OMB due to refinements in how the
estimates are calculated. See the Supporting Statement in the docket
for more information on the changes in estimates.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-04063 Filed 2-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16042-16043]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0029]

Beall Corporation; Receipt of Petition for Renewal of Temporary
Exemption From FMVSS No. 224

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for renewal of a temporary
exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear
Impact Protection.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Beall
Corporation, d/b/a Pioneer Truckweld has petitioned the agency for
renewal of a temporary exemption from certain requirements of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear Impact Protection.
This notice of receipt of an application for renewal of a temporary
exemption is published in accordance with statutory and administrative
provisions. NHTSA has made no judgment on the merits of the
application.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than April 12, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William H. Shakely, Office of the
Chief Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-318,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Basis for Temporary Exemptions

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified
circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or
bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The
Secretary has delegated the authority in this section to NHTSA.
    NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. A vehicle manufacturer
wishing to obtain an exemption from a standard must demonstrate in its
application (A) that an exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act and (B) that the manufacturer satisfies
one of the following four bases for an exemption: (i) Compliance with
the standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard; (iii) the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of that vehicle; or (iv) compliance with the standard
would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an
overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of
nonexempt vehicles.
    A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its
total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production
did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA
Administrator (49 U.S.C. 30113).
    While 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions from a Safety Act
standard are to be granted on a ``temporary basis,'' \1\ the statute
also expressly provides for renewal of an exemption on reapplication.
Exempted manufacturers seeking renewal must bear in mind that the
agency is directed to consider financial hardship as but one factor,
along with the manufacturer's ongoing good faith efforts to comply with
the regulation, the public interest, consistency with the Safety Act,
generally, as well as other such matters

provided in the statute. Manufacturers are nevertheless cautioned that
the agency's decision to grant an initial petition in no way
predetermines that the agency will repeatedly grant renewal petitions,
thereby imparting semi-permanent status to an exemption from a safety
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), ``If an application
for renewal of a temporary exemption that meets the requirements of
Sec.  555.5 has been filed not later than 60 days before the
termination date of an exemption, the exemption does not terminate
until the Administrator grants or denies the application for renewal.''
The subject petition for renewal has been submitted by the deadline
stated in 49 CFR 555.8(e).

II. Rear Impact Protection Requirements

    FMVSS No. 224, Rear Impact Protection requires most trailers and
semitrailers weighing 10,000 pounds or more to be fitted at the rear
with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of FMVSS
No. 223, Rear Impact Guards. The rear impact guard is attached to the
rear of the trailer (within 12 inches (305 mm) of the rear extremity of
the trailer or semitrailer) and acts to prevent a light vehicle from
sliding under the trailer chassis in a crash.

III. Overview of Petition

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
Part 555, Beall Corporation, d/b/a Pioneer Truckweld (Beall) has
submitted a petition requesting renewal of its temporary exemption from
the rear impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 224. A copy of the
petition has been placed in the docket for this notice.\2\ The basis
for the petition is that compliance would cause the petitioner
substantial economic hardship and that the petitioner has tried in good
faith to comply with the standard. Beall has requested a renewal of its
exemption for a period of three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To view the petition, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beall is an Oregon corporation that manufactures trailers. The
Pioneer Truckweld operation manufactures dump body trailers. In a
Federal Register document dated August 20, 2009, Beall was granted a
temporary exemption from the rear impact protection requirements of
FMVSS No. 224 for dump body trailers.\3\ The exemption was granted for
a period from the date of publication until August 20, 2012. The
petition for renewal states that the Pioneer Truckweld operation
manufactured five trailers in the 12-month period prior to filing the
petition, all of which were affected by the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 74 FR 42142 (Aug. 20, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beall states that the denial of the requested exemption will result
in substantial economic hardship. According to the statements of the
petitioner, the denial of the exemption could cost the company 40
percent of its projected sales during the period covered by the
exemption. Additionally, Beall asserts that if the exemption is denied,
it would lose the entire $800,000 goodwill investment associated with
the 2001 purchase of Pioneer Truckweld. Beall states that these effects
could lead to the closure of the Pioneer Truckweld operation and the
laying off of its 17 employees.
    Beall also provides specific financial information for the years
2009 through 2011, along with projections with and without an
exemption. This information has been placed in the docket for this
notice.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although the petition indicates that Beall requested
confidential treatment of this information, Beall subsequently
informed the agency by email that it would not be requesting such
treatment. This email has been placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In explaining why it has not been currently able to meet the rear
impact protection requirements, Beall points to a number a technical
challenges associated with designing a compliant rear impact protection
system. Namely, it states that a device designed to satisfy FMVSS No.
224 for dump body applications must also be capable of moving clear, so
that the hopper of the paving machines can pass through the space
initially occupied by the rear impact protection device. It argues that
if the paving machine cannot position itself underneath the dump body,
the asphalt will spill out as the dump body raises and unloads the
asphalt. The petitioner states that it has been pursuing the design of
acceptable systems in a joint project with the Mechanical Engineering
Department at Montana State University, using techniques such as finite
element analysis and physical testing. In addition, it claims to have
designed acceptable guards for a number of non-asphalt paving
applications.
    Beall states it has considered several alternative means of
compliance. These include plastically deforming devices and hinged and
retractable devices. However, the petitioner believes that there are a
number of problems with regard to these solutions. First, due to
clearance issues, space for retractable devices is not readily
available, and redesign of the vehicle to accommodate such devices
could result in decreased stability. Second, the petitioner states that
the asphalt paving surface has the effect of rendering these sorts of
devices unusable over time. Finally, Beall notes that trailers could be
operated with these devices in the retracted position, resulting in no
safety benefits. Beall indicates that it has been unable to find a
third-party manufacturer that has designed a device that would perform
in a paving application.
    Beall states that under a temporary exemption, it would continue to
pursue a compliant rear impact protection device that would meet the
current standards, including attachment and methods of maintenance to
ensure proper function while in service. The petitioner states that it
will continue to work with other resources available to the paving
industry to develop an acceptable solution.
    Beall believes that it would be in the public's interest to allow
the Pioneer Truckweld operation to manufacture the equipment required
to improve and expand the road building effort in the western United
States while an intense effort is maintained by Pioneer Truckweld to
design an acceptable underride device that will perform well in a
paving operation.

IV. Completeness and Comment Period

    Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition with respect to whether the petition is complete. The agency
has tentatively concluded that the petition from Beall is complete. The
agency has not made any judgment on the merits of the petition, and is
placing a copy of the petition and supporting information in the
docket.
    The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of Beall's
petition for renewal of a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 224. We
are providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public
comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of
final action on the petition in the Federal Register.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.8)

    Issued on: March 4, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-05780 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46738-46739]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16850]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78306; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-33]

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

July 12, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on July 1, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
    \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 Fee Schedule to adopt a
new tier under footnote 1 called the Cross-Asset Add Volume Tier.
    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 adopt a new tier
under footnote 1 called the Cross-Asset Add Volume Tier.
    Currently, with respect to the Exchange's equities trading platform
(``BZX Equities'') the Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate
that it will provide to Members using the Exchange's tiered pricing
structure. Under such pricing structure, a Member will receive a rebate
of anywhere between $0.0020 and $0.0034 per share executed, depending
on the volume tier for which such Member qualifies. Included amongst
the volume tiers offered by the Exchange are various tiers for purposes
of BZX Equities pricing, which require participation on the Exchange's
options platform (``BZX Options'') and are generally referred to as
``Cross-Asset Tiers''. For instance, pursuant to current footnote 12 of
the Fee Schedule, the Exchange offers a Cross-Asset Tape B Tier, which
provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0028 [sic] per share on orders that
add liquidity in Tape B securities submitted by Members with: (1) A
Tape B Step-Up Add TCV \5\ from February 2015 equal to or greater than
0.06%, and (2) Options Market Maker Add TCV \6\ equal to or greater
than 0.75%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed tier described below, the Exchange
proposes to adopt a definition for Options Customer Add TCV that is
similar to the definition of Options Market Maker Add TCV set forth on
the Exchange's Fee Schedule. As proposed, ``Options Customer Add TCV''
for purposes of equities pricing would mean ``ADAV resulting from
Customer orders as a percentage of TCV, using the definitions of ADAV,
Customer and TCV as provided under the Exchange's fee schedule for BZX
Options.''
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new tier under footnote 1 titled
the ``Cross-Asset Add Volume Tier.'' Under the Cross-Asset Add Volume
Tier, the Exchange is proposing to provide a rebate of $0.0028 per
share to Members with: (1) An ADAV as a percentage of TCV equal to or
greater than 0.15%; and (2) an Options Customer Add TCV equal to or
greater than 0.10%. As is the case with any other rebates on the Fee
Schedule, to the extent that a Member qualifies for higher rebates than
those provided under the proposed Cross-Asset Add Volume Tier, the
higher rebates shall apply.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee
Schedule immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4),\8\ 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. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive
pricing structure designed to incent market participants to direct
their order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed tier is equitable and non-discriminatory in it would apply
uniformly to all Members. The Exchange believes the rates remain
competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volume-based rebates and fees such as the proposed Cross-Asset Add
Volume Tier have been widely adopted by equities and options exchanges
and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal
basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably
related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with
higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity
provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of
orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to add a Cross-Asset Add
Volume Tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates because it will provide
Members with an additional incentive to reach certain thresholds on
both BZX Equities and BZX Options. The increased liquidity from this
proposal also benefits all investors by deepening the

BZX Equities and BZX Options liquidity pools, offering additional
flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the
quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving
investor protection. Such pricing programs thereby reward a Member's
growth pattern on the Exchange and such increased volume increases
potential revenue to the Exchange, and will allow the Exchange to
continue to provide and potentially expand the incentive programs
operated by the Exchange. To the extent a Member participates on the
Exchange but not on BZX Options, the Exchange does believe that the
proposal is still reasonable, equitably allocated and non-
discriminatory with respect to such Member based on the overall benefit
to the Exchange resulting from the success of BZX Options. As noted
above, such success allows the Exchange to continue to provide and
potentially expand its existing incentive programs to the benefit of
all participants on the Exchange, whether they participate on BZX
Options or not. The proposed pricing program is also fair and equitable
in that membership in BZX Options is available to all market
participants which would provide them with access to the benefits on
BZX Options provided by the proposed changes, as described above, even
where a member of BZX Options is not necessarily eligible for the
proposed increased rebates on the Exchange. Further, the proposed
changes will result in Members receiving either the same or an
increased rebate than they would currently receive.

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

    The Exchange does not believe its proposed amendment to its Fee
Schedule would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant
departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing
offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to
disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer
them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The
proposed changes are generally intended to enhance the rebates for
liquidity added to the Exchange, which is intended to draw additional
liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be
available to all Members uniformly.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed new Cross-Asset Add
Volume Tier would burden competition, but instead, enhances
competition, as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of and
draw additional volume to the Exchange.

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 \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 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-BatsBZX-2016-33 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-BatsBZX-2016-33. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-33 and should
be submitted on or before August 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16850 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 Summary of Summary of EPA Ethics Reviews EPA Ethics Reviews Arnold, J. D. ( 1976) Evaluation of the Safe Exposure Levels to Carbamate,

Administered Orally to Healthy Adult Normal Male Volunteers. Unpublished study prepared by Quincy Research Center. 82 p. MRID 92826.

Arnold, J. D. ( 1977) Carbamate ( Carbofuran) Human Dermal Study.

Unpublished study prepared by Quincy Research Center. 36 p. ( MRID 92827;

also pp. 106 141 in CDL Accession 241303.)

Arnold, J. D. ( 1978) Comparison of Cholinesterase Inhibition and Effects of Furadan 4F and FMC 35001 4EC. Unpublished study prepared by Quincy Research Center. 92 p. ( MRID 92829) 2 Carbofuran Human Studies Carbofuran Human Studies

All conducted in 1976 78 at Quincy Research Center, Kansas City MO

All overseen and approved by " Community Review Committee, Inc."

All with explicit informed consent

All drew from pool of semi skilled unemployed workers

All designed to continue dose escalation until toxic signs were evident 3 Carbofuran ( 76) Oral Carbofuran ( 76) Oral " Framework Framework"

1. Value  Not published or disseminated  Societal value not addressed in reports  Purpose " to determine . . . the minimum dose necessary to induce toxic effects. . ."

 Subjects told research was essential to determine safe levels of exposure for workers 2. Scientific Validity: Defer to others 4 Carbofuran Carbofuran ( 76) Oral ( 76) Oral " Framework Framework"

 2 3. Subject Selection  20 adult male volunteers from pool at laboratory ° 19 58 years old; median age 34 ° 80% white, 17% black, 3% other races ° 52% high school grads; 16% some college ° 60% semi skilled workers ° 92% not steadily employed  No evidence of use of vulnerable groups 5 Carbofuran ( 76) Oral Carbofuran ( 76) Oral " Framework Framework"

 3 4. Risk Benefit Ratio  Study design did not minimize risk to subjects  Conducted in clinic with medical supervision  Atropine available as antidote  Subjects told of possible symptoms  Subjects told the study would not benefit them directly; societal benefits not addressed  Subjects compensated; amount not reported 6 Carbofuran ( 76) Oral Carbofuran ( 76) Oral " Framework Framework"

 4 5. Independent Ethics Review  Protocol and IC process and materials asserted to have been approved by the Community Review Committee, Inc.

 Committee members asserted to have no financial or professional relationship with Quincy Research  Committee discussion not reported 7 Carbofuran ( 76) Oral Carbofuran ( 76) Oral " Framework Framework"

 5 6. Informed Consent  Consent form described the procedure and possible physical effects adequately  Purpose of study described to subjects as to establish " maximum safe dosage"

 Subjects not told dose escalation would continue until toxic signs induced  Consent form read aloud, verbatim, before subjects were asked to sign 8 Carbofuran ( 76) Oral Carbofuran ( 76) Oral " Framework Framework"

 6 7. Respect for Subjects  Subjects' privacy was not compromised  Subjects were free to withdraw without penalty 9 Carbofuran Oral ( 76) Prevailing Standard Carbofuran Oral ( 76) Prevailing Standard

Conducted in US in 1976

Cited no standard of ethical conduct

FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P) applicable

Declaration of Helsinki ( 1975) assumed to have prevailed 10 FIFRA FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P)

12( a)( 2)( P)

" It shall be unlawful for any person . . . to use any pesticide in tests on human beings unless such human beings ( i) are fully informed of the nature and purposes of the test and of any physical and mental health consequences which are reasonably foreseeable therefrom,

and ( ii) freely volunteer to participate in the test." 11 FIFRA FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P)

12( a)( 2)( P)

Subjects were not told that dose would escalate until toxic signs were induced

Subjects were told study was to establish " maximum safe dose", and that " the nature of the test compound . . . is such that we do not expect serious complications"

Subjects were not fully informed of " any physical consequences . . . foreseeable." 12 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

Basic Principle # 5: " Every . . . project . . . should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others. Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail . . ."

EPA Comment: If a careful assessment was conducted it was not reported. Exposure of additional subjects to a dose already shown to cause illness does not suggest the interests of the subjects prevailed 13 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 2

Basic Principle # 12: " The research protocol should always contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved . . . ."

EPA Comment: There is no substantive discussion of ethical considerations in the protocol 14 Carbofuran Oral ( 76) Summary Carbofuran Oral ( 76) Summary

Some gaps in the record, but gaps are not " clear and convincing evidence"

No children; no pregnant females; no evidence that the research was fundamentally unethical

Inadequate information to support consent

Some deficiencies relative to the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki

We welcome the Board's advice on the significance of these deficiencies 15 Carbofuran ( 77) Dermal Study Carbofuran ( 77) Dermal Study

Conducted in 1977 at Quincy Research

Reviewed and approved by Community Review Committee, Inc.

18 healthy adult male volunteers

Ascending dose design in phases 1 and 2

Single dose, repeat exposure in phase 3

High temp/ humidity in phases 1 and 3 16 Carbofuran Dermal ( 77)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) " Framework Framework"

1. Value  Not published or disseminated  Societal value not addressed in reports  Subjects told research was essential to determine safe levels of exposure for workers  Purpose " to determine . . . threshold toxicity level"

2. Scientific Validity: Defer to others 17 Carbofuran Dermal ( 77)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) " Framework Framework"

 2 3. Subject Selection  Adult male volunteers from pool at laboratory  mainly semi skilled workers without steady employment  No evidence of use of vulnerable groups 18 Carbofuran Dermal ( 77)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) " Framework Framework"

 3 4. Risk Benefit Ratio  Study design did not minimize risk to subjects  Conducted in clinic with medical supervision  Atropine available as antidote  Subjects told of possible symptoms  Subjects told the study would not benefit them directly; societal benefits not addressed  Subject compensation not reported 19 Carbofuran Dermal ( 77)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) " Framework Framework"

 4 5. Independent Ethics Review  Protocol and IC process and materials asserted to have been approved by the Community Review Committee, Inc.

 Committee discussion not reported  Changes to dose levels in Phase 2 were made after Committee approval, and without consulting the Committee 20 Carbofuran Dermal ( 77)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) " Framework Framework"

 5 6. Informed Consent  Consent form described the procedure and possible physical effects adequately  Purpose of study described to subjects as to establish " maximum safe dosage"

 Subjects not told dose escalation would continue until toxic signs induced  Consent form read aloud, verbatim, before subjects were asked to sign 21 Carbofuran Dermal ( 77)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) " Framework Framework"

 6 7. Respect for Subjects  Subject privacy was not compromised  Subjects were free to withdraw without penalty 22 Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) Prevailing Standard Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) Prevailing Standard

Conducted in US in 1977

Cited no standard of ethical conduct

FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P) applicable

Declaration of Helsinki ( 1975) assumed to have prevailed 23 FIFRA FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P)

12( a)( 2)( P)

" It shall be unlawful for any person . . . to use any pesticide in tests on human beings unless such human beings ( i) are fully informed of the nature and purposes of the test and of any physical and mental health consequences which are reasonably foreseeable therefrom, and ( ii)

freely volunteer to participate in the test." 24 FIFRA FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P)

12( a)( 2)( P)

Subjects were not told that dose would escalate until toxic signs were induced

Subjects were told study was to establish " maximum safe dose", and that " the nature of the test compound . . . is such that we do not expect serious complications"

Subjects were not fully informed of " any physical consequences . . . foreseeable." 25 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

Basic Principle # 5: " Every . . . project . . . should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others. Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail . . ."

EPA Comment: If a careful assessment was conducted it was not reported. Decision to raise dose levels in Phase 2 suggests the interests of the subjects may not have prevailed 26 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 2

Basic Principle # 12: " The research protocol should always contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved . . . ."

EPA Comment: There is no substantive discussion of ethical considerations in the protocol 27 Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) Summary Carbofuran Dermal ( 77) Summary

Some gaps in the record, but gaps are not " clear and convincing evidence"

No children; no pregnant females; no evidence that the research was fundamentally unethical

Inadequate information provided to support consent

Some deficiencies relative to the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki

We welcome the Board's advice on the significance of these deficiencies 28 Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) Study Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) Study

Conducted in 1978 at Quincy Research

Reviewed and approved by Community Review Committee, Inc.

20 healthy adult male volunteers

Comparison of effects from two different formulations

High temperature and humidity 29 Carbofuran Dermal ( 78)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) " Framework Framework"

1. Value  Not published or disseminated  Societal value not addressed in reports  Subjects told research was essential to determine safe levels of exposure for workers  Purpose " to compare effects of single cutaneous applications of [ 2 formulations]"

2. Scientific Validity: Defer to others 30 Carbofuran Dermal ( 78)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) " Framework Framework"

 2 3. Subject Selection  Adult male volunteers from pool at laboratory

mainly semi skilled workers without steady employment  Demographics of pool described in unusual detail  No evidence of use of vulnerable groups 31 Carbofuran Dermal ( 78)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) " Framework Framework"

 3 4. Risk Benefit Ratio  Study design did not minimize risk to subjects  Conducted in clinic with medical supervision  Atropine available as antidote  Subjects told of possible symptoms  Subjects told the study would not benefit them directly; societal benefits not addressed  Subject compensation not reported 32 Carbofuran Dermal ( 78)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) " Framework Framework"

 4 5. Independent Ethics Review  Protocol and IC process and materials asserted to have been approved by the Community Review Committee, Inc.

 Committee discussion not reported  Unusually complete information provided about the review committee 33 Carbofuran Dermal ( 78)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) " Framework Framework"

 5 6. Informed Consent  Consent form described the procedure and possible physical effects adequately  Purpose of study described to subjects as to establish " maximum safe dosage"

 Subjects not told dose escalation would continue until toxic signs induced  " Purposes, procedures, and risks" explained before subjects were asked to sign consent 34 Carbofuran Dermal ( 78)

Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) " Framework Framework"

 6 7. Respect for Subjects  Subject privacy was not compromised  Subjects were free to withdraw without penalty 35 Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) Prevailing Standard Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) Prevailing Standard

Conducted in US in 1978

Cited no standard of ethical conduct

FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P) applicable

Declaration of Helsinki ( 1975) assumed to have prevailed 36 FIFRA FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P)

12( a)( 2)( P)

" It shall be unlawful for any person . . . to use any pesticide in tests on human beings unless such human beings ( i) are fully informed of the nature and purposes of the test and of any physical and mental health consequences which are reasonably foreseeable therefrom, and ( ii)

freely volunteer to participate in the test." 37 FIFRA FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P)

12( a)( 2)( P)

Subjects were not told that dose would escalate until toxic signs were induced

Subjects were told study was to establish " maximum safe dose", and that " the nature of the test compound . . . is such that we do not expect serious complications"

Subjects were not fully informed of " any physical consequences . . . foreseeable." 38 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

Basic Principle # 2: " The design . . . of each experimental procedure involving human subjects should be clearly formulated in an experimental protocol"

EPA Comment: Protocol not included in report 39 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 2

Basic Principle # 5: " Every . . . project . . .

should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others. Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail . . ."

EPA Comment: If a careful assessment was conducted it was not reported. 40 Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) Summary Carbofuran Dermal ( 78) Summary

Some gaps in the record, but gaps are not " clear and convincing evidence"

No children; no pregnant females; no evidence that the research was fundamentally unethical

Inadequate information provided to support consent

Some deficiencies relative to the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki

We welcome the Board's advice on the significance of these deficiencies


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45333-45335]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19282]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0777; Product Identifier 2018-NE-28-AD; Amendment
39-19366; AD 2018-17-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, GE90-77B, GE90-85B, GE90-90B,
and GE90-94B turbofan engines with full authority digital engine
control (FADEC) software, version <IP_ADDRESS> or earlier, installed. This
AD requires upgrading the FADEC software to a software version eligible
for installation. This AD was prompted by an ice-crystal icing (ICI)
event that caused damage to both engines, a single engine stall, and
subsequent engine shutdown. We are issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 24, 2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by October 22, 2018.

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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. 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-2018-0777.

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-
0777; 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 street address for the Docket Operations (phone:
800-647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7756; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We received a report of a commanded in-flight shutdown and an air
turn back shortly after takeoff. After further investigation, the
operator found high-pressure compressor (HPC) damage, which was the
result of an earlier ICI event. After the ICI event and subsequent
progressive HPC damage, engine performance decreased and an engine
stall occurred. As a result, GE improved the FADEC software to provide
ICI event detection and to provide an alternate variable bypass valve
(VBV) schedule that opens the VBV doors to extract ice crystals from
the core flowpath and reduce accretion when ICI is detected. This
condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the HPC,
failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the
airplane. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed GE GE90 Service Bulletin (SB) 73-0146, dated May 2,
2018. The SB introduces new FADEC software and describes procedures for
upgrading the FADEC software.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing 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.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires upgrading the FADEC software to a software version
eligible for installation.

Differences Between the AD and the Service Information

    GE GE90 SB 73-0146, dated May 2, 2018, recommends that you load the
new FADEC software as soon as possible, but no later than six months
after the original issue date of the SB. This AD requires compliance
within 90 days after the effective date of this AD. We expect this
difference to be minimal because the GE SB was issued earlier than this
AD.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because engine failure due to an ICI event is more likely to occur
during the current convective weather season and such failure could
result in failure of one or more engines and loss of the airplane.
Because of this, the compliance time for the required action is shorter
than the time necessary for the public to comment and for us to publish
the final rule to ensure the unsafe condition is fixed during the
convective weather season. Therefore, we find good cause that notice
and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In
addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists
for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-
0777 and Product Identifier 2018-NE-28-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
final rule 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 final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 57 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upgrade the FADEC software............  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $4,845
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation 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 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):

2018-17-12 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-19366; Docket No.
FAA-2018-0777; Product Identifier 2018-NE-28-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 24, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all GE GE90-76B, GE90-77B, GE90-85B, GE90-
90B, and GE90-94B turbofan engines with full authority digital
engine control (FADEC) software, version <IP_ADDRESS> or earlier,
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an ice-crystal icing event that caused
damage to both engines, a single engine stall, and subsequent engine
shutdown. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the high-
pressure compressor (HPC). The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in failure of the HPC, failure of one or more engines,
loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, remove
FADEC software, version <IP_ADDRESS> or earlier, from the engine.
    (2) Install a FADEC software version eligible for installation.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, do not
operate any engine with FADEC software, version <IP_ADDRESS> or earlier,
installed.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. You may email your request
to: [email protected].
    (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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact John Frost,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA, 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 30, 2018.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19282 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9837-9839]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3862]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0533; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-16-AD;
Amendment 39-16948; AD 2012-03-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming Engines Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines. This AD was prompted by a
report of a ``machined-from-billet'' HA-6 carburetor having a loose
mixture control sleeve that rotated in the carburetor body causing
restriction of fuel and power loss. This AD requires removing certain
``machined-from-billet'' Volare LLC (formerly Precision Airmotive
Corporation, formerly Facet Aerospace Products Company, formerly
Marvel-Schebler (BorgWarner)) HA-6 carburetors, inspecting for a loose
mixture control sleeve or for a sleeve that may become loose, repairing
the carburetor, or replacing the carburetor with one eligible for
installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight
shutdown, power loss, and reduced control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective March 27, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 27,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Marvel-Schebler Aircraft Carburetors LLC, 125 Piedmont Avenue,
Gibsonville NC 27249; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: www.msacarbs.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Brane, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate; 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:
404-474-5582; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 1, 2011 (76 FR
54397). That NPRM proposed to require removing certain ``machined-from-
billet'' Volare LLC (formerly Precision Airmotive Corporation, formerly
Facet Aerospace Products Company, formerly Marvel-Schebler
(BorgWarner)) HA-6 carburetors, inspecting for a loose mixture control
sleeve or for a sleeve that may become loose, repairing the carburetor,
or replacing the carburetor with one eligible for installation.

Comments

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

Request To Incorporate All Affected Engine Models

    One commenter, a private citizen, requested that we incorporate all
affected engine models with HA-6 model carburetors installed in the AD.
The commenter provided a list, which he compiled from reviewing all
applicable published Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS).
    We partially agree. We agree that some additional models are
affected because the list provided by the commenter is mostly
consistent with the applicable TCDS. We do not agree with the commenter
on some of the models he thinks are affected, because we could not
confirm they are affected, based on the TCDS. However, we determined
that we need to change the applicability from a table of specific
engine models, to all Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines with
carburetor part numbers listed in Table 1 of the AD. We changed the AD
applicability to all Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines with
carburetor part numbers listed in Table 1 of the AD.

Change to the Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) Paragraph

    Since we issued the proposed AD, we found that we referenced the
wrong office in the AMOC paragraph. We changed that sentence to state
that the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD.

Change to Service Information

    Marvel-Schebler Aircraft Carburetors LLC has revised their Marvel-
Schebler Emergency Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB-18, dated October 14,
2010, to Revision A, dated March 15, 2011. We reviewed Revision A, and
determined that it also is acceptable. We changed the incorporated by
reference paragraph k of the AD to include the original issue and
Revision A.

Conclusion

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 10,700 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 0.5
work-hours per aircraft to perform the inspection, and that about 409
carburetors will need repair. Approximately 2 work-hours per carburetor
are required to repair the carburetor. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $600 per carburetor.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $769,680. Our estimate is exclusive of possible
warranty coverage.

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

    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 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):

2012-03-07 Lycoming Engines (formerly Textron Lycoming Division,
AVCO Corporation): Amendment 39-16948; Docket No. FAA-2011-0533;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-16-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 27, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines
with carburetor part numbers listed in Table 1 of this AD.

Table 1--Part Numbers (Including All Dash Numbers) of Known Affected HA-
                           6 Model Carburetors
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  10-5219-XX     10-5224-XX     10-5230-XX     10-5235-XX    10-5253-XX
  10-5255-XX     10-5283-XX     10-6001-XX     10-6019-XX    10-6030-XX
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a ``machined-from-billet''
HA-6 carburetor having a loose mixture control sleeve that rotated
in the carburetor body causing restriction of fuel and power loss.
We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown, power
loss, and reduced control of the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within 50 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, unless already done.

(f) Inspection

    Inspect the carburetor to determine the type of body the
carburetor has. Use Marvel-Schebler Emergency Service Bulletin (SB)
No. SB-18, dated October 14, 2010, or Revision A, dated March 15,
2011, Figure (3) to determine which type of body is used.
    (g) If the carburetor has a die-cast body, no further action is
required.
    (h) If the carburetor has an affected ``machined-from-billet''
body, remove the carburetor; and replace the carburetor with:
    (1) An HA-6 carburetor not listed in Table 1 of this AD; or
    (2) An HA-6 carburetor that is listed in Table 1 but is exempted
as described in paragraphs 1.A. and 1.B of Marvel-Schebler Emergency
SB No. SB-18, dated October 14, 2010 or Revision A, dated March 15,
2011; or that has already been repaired using that Emergency SB.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19
to make your request.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Brane,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate; 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the
following service information:
    (i) Marvel-Schebler Emergency Service Bulletin No. SB-18, dated
October 14, 2010.
    (ii) Marvel-Schebler Emergency Service Bulletin No. SB-18,
Revision A, dated March 15, 2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Marvel-Schebler Aircraft Carburetors LLC, 125 Piedmont Avenue,
Gibsonville, NC 27249; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: www.msacarbs.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 1, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-3862 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4097-4098]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01466]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94011; File No. SR-FINRA-2021-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6730 To Require
Members To Append Modifiers To Delayed Treasury Spot Trades and
Portfolio Trades When Reporting to TRACE

January 20, 2022.
    On November 22, 2021, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 6730 to require members to
append modifiers to delayed Treasury spot trades and portfolio trades
when reporting to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine
(``TRACE''). The proposed rule change was

published for comment in the Federal Register on December 7, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93699 (December 1,
2021), 86 FR 69337. Comments received on the proposed rule change
are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2021-030/srfinra2021030.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 21, 2022. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period for Commission action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the
comments received. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act, the Commission designates March 7, 2022, as the date by which the
Commission shall approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
FINRA-2021-030).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01466 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P