[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26916-26918]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12090]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86026; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-045]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Equity 7, Section 118(a)

June 4, 2019.
    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 May 22, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') 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
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 118(a), as
described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt pricing for the
recently adopted SCAR routing strategy,\3\ which will be implemented on
May 13, 2019.\4\ In sum, SCAR is a routing option under which orders
check the System \5\ for available shares and simultaneously route to
the other equity markets operated by Nasdaq, Inc., the Nasdaq BX
Equities Market (``BX'') and Nasdaq PSX (``PSX'' and together with BX
and the Exchange, the ``Nasdaq Affiliated Exchanges'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xv). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 85372 (March 20, 2019), 84 FR 11357 (March
26, 2019) (SR-NASDAQ-2019-013).
    \4\ See Equity Trader Alert #2019-29.
    \5\ The term ``System'' shall mean the automated system for
order execution and trade reporting owned and operated by the
Exchange. See Rule 4701(a).
    \6\ If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted
on the Exchange's book or cancelled. Once on the book, should the
order subsequently be locked or crossed by another market center,
the System will not route the order to the locking or crossing
market center. See Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on May
13, 2019 (SR-NASDAQ-2019-038). On May 22, 2019, the Exchange withdrew
that filing and submitted this filing.
    The Exchange now proposes to adopt the following pricing for SCAR
orders in securities listed on Nasdaq (``Tape C''), NYSE (``Tape A''),
and on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE (``Tape B'') (collectively,
``Tapes''), which execute on BX and PSX: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Orders using the SCAR routing option that execute on the
Exchange would be subject to the Exchange's standard fees and
rebates. Currently, members that do not meet certain volume
thresholds that would qualify them for a discounted charge or credit
are assessed a standard transaction fee of $0.0030 per share for
orders in any Tape securities priced at $1 or more per share that
execute on the Exchange. See Equity 7, Section 118(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     SCAR orders executed on BX will be provided a credit of
$0.0015 per share in Tape A and Tape C securities priced at $1 or more
per share.
     SCAR orders executed on BX will be provided a credit of
$0.0026 per share in Tape B securities priced at $1 or more per
share.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange is proposing to provide a higher credit for
SCAR orders executed on BX in Tape B securities priced at $1 or more
than such orders in securities in Tape A and Tape C to coordinate
with BX pricing. BX similarly gives higher credits for orders that
access liquidity on BX in Tape B securities priced at $1 or more per
share than such orders in securities in Tape A and Tape C. See BX
Equity 7, Section 118(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     SCAR orders executed on PSX will be assessed a charge of
$0.0029 per

share in all Tape securities priced at $1 or more per share.
     SCAR orders executed on BX or PSX in all Tape securities
priced below $1 per share will be assessed a charge of 0.30% of the
total transaction cost.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This is the same rate that the Exchange currently charges
for all securities priced below $1 that route and execute at an away
venue. See Equity 7, Section 118(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the pricing proposed above for
SCAR is generally set at levels intended to incentivize members to use
this new routing strategy while also allowing the Exchange to recoup
the costs of providing routing services. For instance, under this
proposal, members will be provided credits of $0.0015 (for securities
in Tapes A and C) or $0.0026 (for Tape B securities) for orders in
securities priced at $1 or more per share that route to and execute on
BX using the SCAR strategy. In contrast, orders that execute directly
on BX as the home exchange (i.e., without using SCAR) are currently
charged a standard transaction fee of $0.0003 per share.\12\
Furthermore, the proposed $0.0029 per share charge for orders in any
Tape securities priced at $1 or more per share that route to and
execute on PSX using the SCAR routing strategy is lower than the
standard transaction charge of $0.0030 per share that would apply if
the order executed directly on PSX as the home exchange.\13\ As such,
the proposed SCAR pricing is set at rates that make it more economical
for members to use this routing strategy, especially for those members
that do not already add and/or remove large amounts of volume on PSX
and BX directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This fee would apply unless the member qualifies for a
better rate (such as a liquidity removal credit) by meeting certain
volume thresholds. See BX Equity 7, Section 118(a).
    \13\ This fee would apply unless the member qualifies for a
better rate (such as a discounted fee or credit) by meeting certain
volume thresholds. See PSX Equity 7, Section 3, Order Execution and
Routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed SCAR credits and
charges for all Tape securities priced at $1 or more per share are set
at appropriate levels for the reasons that follow. As noted above, the
Exchange is proposing a higher credit for SCAR orders in Tape B
securities than in securities in Tape A and Tape C to coordinate with
BX pricing, which generally provides higher credits for BX members to
remove liquidity from BX in Tape B securities priced at $1 or more per
share than in Tape A and Tape C securities priced at $1 or more.\14\
The Exchange therefore believes that the credits are set at appropriate
levels because the proposed credit of $0.0026 for Tape B securities
corresponds to the highest Tape B liquidity removal credit currently
provided for accessing liquidity directly on BX.\15\ As a means of
offsetting the higher credit proposed for Tape B securities and also of
recouping the costs of providing routing services, Exchange is
proposing the credit of $0.0015 for Tapes A and C securities that is
slightly lower than the highest Tapes A and C credit currently provided
for accessing liquidity directly on BX.\16\ The Exchange still believes
that the proposed $0.0015 credit for Tape A and Tape C securities is
set at an appropriate level because it remains within the range of the
Tapes A and C liquidity removal credits currently provided for
accessing liquidity directly on BX.\17\ The proposed credit is also
aligned with the $0.0015 rebate currently provided by Cboe BZX Exchange
(``BZX''), Cboe EDGX Exchange (``EDGX''), and Cboe EDGA (``EDGA'') to
their members using ALLB, a routing strategy similar to SCAR in that
ALLB routes between affiliated exchanges only,\18\ to route orders to
their affiliate, Cboe BYX Exchange (``BYX'').\19\ In addition, the
proposed $0.0029 charge for SCAR orders that route and execute on PSX
is similarly aligned with the $0.0029 charge currently assessed by BYX,
BZX, and EDGA to their members using the ALLB routing strategy to route
orders to their affiliate, EDGX,\20\ while also remaining lower than
the standard rate of $0.0030 per share presently charged for accessing
liquidity directly on PSX, as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 8.
    \15\ See BX Equity 7, Section 118(a) (providing a $0.0026 credit
for BX members entering orders in Tape B securities that access
liquidity on BX if they meet certain criteria).
    \16\ These credits range from $0.0001 to $0.0018. See BX Equity
7, Section 118(a).
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Unlike SCAR, which routes simultaneously to Nasdaq, PSX,
and BX simultaneously in accordance with the System routing table,
the ALLB routing strategy offered by BZX, BYZ, EDGA, and EDGX first
checks the local book before being routed to the affiliated
exchanges in accordance with the applicable system routing table.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85372 (March 20, 2019), 84
FR 11357 (March 26, 2019) (SR-NASDAQ-2019-013).
    \19\ See BZX Fee Schedule, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx; EDGX Fee
Schedule, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx; and EDGA Fee Schedule, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga.
    \20\ See BYX Fee Schedule, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx. See supra
note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that it is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to assess the proposed charge for SCAR
orders executed on BX or PSX in any Tape securities priced below $1 per
share because it is consistent with what it currently charges for all
orders in securities priced at less than $1 per share that route and
execute at an away venue.\21\ Lastly, the Exchange believes that the
proposed pricing changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they will apply uniformly to all members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange currently charges 0.30% of the total
transaction cost for all such orders. See Equity 7, Section 118(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees to remain competitive. Because competitors are free to
modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may
readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes
that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed pricing for SCAR orders are intended
to recoup the Exchange's costs associated with providing routing
services while providing incentives to members to make use of the
Exchange's optional routing functionality. As discussed

above, the Exchange believes that its proposed pricing remains
competitive with other equity exchanges.\22\ In addition, because the
Exchange's routing services are the subject of competition, including
price competition, from other exchanges and broker-dealers that offer
routing services, as well as the ability of members to use their own
routing capabilities, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market
share as a result of the changes if they are unattractive to market
participants. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra notes 19 and 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-045 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-NASDAQ-2019-045. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-045 and should be submitted
on or before July 1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12090 Filed 6-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency/ ORD/ NERL 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2 0 8 0  0 0 0 5 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G

Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. G

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes G

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. G

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /

7. Title Application for Reference and Equivalent Method Determination ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable)

0559.08 9. Keywords Air pollution control, environmental protection, ambient air monitoring methods, reference and equivalent methods 10. Abstract This ICR addresses the information, data collection, and recordkeeping requirements applicable ( primarily) to manufacturers or sellers of air pollutant monitoring devices or methods, who seek to have such devices or methods reviewed and considered by EPA for designation as reference or equivalent methods under regulations at 40 CFR part 53. Such designation authorizes the devices or methods to be used by States in their EPA required ambient air quality surveillance networks.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. GX Voluntary b. GP Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 19 b. Total annual responses 19 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 4,718 d. Current OMB inventory 4,718 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 20 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 81 c. Total annualized cost requested 101 d. Current OMB inventory 89 e. Difference 12 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 12 Recordkeeping requirement over 3 years.

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f.. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. X Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. QX Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. QX Reporting 1. [ x] On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. QX Other ( describe) One time.

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes QX No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission)

Name: Elizabeth Hunike Phone: 919 541 3737 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Linda Sheldon, Acting Director Human Exposure & Atmospheric Sciences Division National Exposure Research Laboratory ( NERL) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: October 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 60708-60709]
[DOCID:fr14oc08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2008-1009]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0035

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) and Analysis to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
requesting an extension of their approval for the following collection
of information: 1625-0035, Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving,
Electrical, and Engineering Equipment, Construction and Materials &
Marine Sanitation Devices (33 CFR part 159). Before submitting this ICR
to OMB, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 15,
2008.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2008-
1009], please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand deliver: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the completed ICR is available through this docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,
(Attn: Mr. Arthur Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this information
collection request should be granted based on it being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. We will post all comments received, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal
information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their
DMF. Please see the paragraph on DOT's ``Privacy Act Policy'' below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2008-1009], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your

submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic
means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit them by only one means. If you submit them
by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change the documents supporting this
collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view
of them.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket. Enter the docket number [USCG-2008-1009] in the Search box, and
click, ``Go>>.'' You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the West
Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in 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 a Privacy Act
Notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, and
Engineering Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation
Devices (33 CFR part 159).
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0035.
    Summary: This information is used by the Coast Guard to ensure
regulations governing specific types of safety equipment, material, and
Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) installed on commercial vessels and
pleasure craft are met. Manufacturers are required to submit drawings,
specifications, and laboratory test reports to the Coast Guard before
any approval is given.
    Need: Sections 2103, 3306, 3703, and 4302 of 46 U.S.C. authorize
the Coast Guard to establish safety equipment and material regulations.
These regulations are contained in 46 CFR parts 159 to 164. Section
1322 of 33 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to establish MSD
regulations that are contained in 33 CFR part 159. This information
will be used to determine whether manufacturers are in compliance with
Coast Guard regulations. When the Coast Guard approves any safety
equipment, material, or MSD for use on a commercial vessel or pleasure
craft, the manufacturer is issued a Certificate of Approval.
    Forms: CGHQ-10030, USCG Certificate of Approval.
    Respondents: Manufacturers of safety equipment, materials, and
marine sanitation devices.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 20,529
hours to 103,121 per year.

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
D.T. Glenn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
 [FR Doc. E8-24329 Filed 10-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25399-25400]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09904]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0642; FRL-9945-74-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Chemical Preparations Industry
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Chemical
Preparations Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBBB) (Renewal)''
(EPA ICR No. 2356.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0636), to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
April 30, 2016. Public comments were requested previously, via the
Federal Register (80 FR 32116), on June 5, 2015--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 May 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0642, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
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: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions, to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBBB. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must
submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports
and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records
of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction
in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which
the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually
at a minimum.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Chemical preparation facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart BBBBBBB).
    Estimated number of respondents: 26 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 2,210 hours (per year). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $223,000 (per year), which includes $390 in
either annualized capital/startup or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in
respondent labor

hours in this ICR from the most recently approved ICR. This is due to
assuming all existing sources will have to re-familiarize themselves
with the regulatory requirements each year.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-09904 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80832-80834]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32536]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76708; File No. SR-EDGX-2015-63]

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

December 21, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 10, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 modify the ``Options Pricing'' section of
its fee schedule effective immediately, to modify pricing for orders
routed away from the Exchange and executed at various away options
exchanges. The Exchange currently charges the following rates for
orders routed to certain other options exchanges: (i) Non-Customer \6\
orders in non-Penny Pilot Securities.\7\ routed to NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``Arca''), which yield fee code AG, are charged $0.95 per contract;
(ii) Intermarket Sweep Orders (``ISOs'') in non-Penny Pilot Securities
that are directed to Nasdaq Options Market LLC (``NOM''), Arca, or ISE
Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini'') are charged $0.95 per contract; (iii) ISOs
directed to other options exchanges are charged $0.65 per contract; \8\
(iv) Customer orders routed to the International Securities Exchange,
LLC (``ISE'') in non-Penny Pilot Securities which yield fee code ID and
are charged $0.12 per contract; (v) Customer orders routed to the Miami
International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'') which yield fee code
MC are charged $0.12 per contract; (vi) Non-Customer orders routed to
MIAX which yield fee code MF are charged $0.65 per contract; (vii)
Customer orders routed to the BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') which
yield fee code OC are charged no fee; (viii) Non-Customer orders routed
to BOX which yield fee code OF are charged $0.99 per contract; (ix)
Non-Customer orders routed to NOM in Penny Pilot Securities which yield
fee code QF are charged $0.65 per contract; (x) Non-Customer orders
routed to NOM in non-Penny Pilot Securities which yield fee code QG are
charged $0.95 per contract; and (xi) Customer orders routed to NYSE MKT
LLC (``NYSE MKT'' f/k/a AMEX) which yield fee code XC are charged $0.12
per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Non-Customer'' applies to any transaction that is not a
Customer Order. ``Customer'' applies to any transaction identified
by a Member for clearing in the Customer range at the OCC, excluding
any transaction for a Broker Dealer or a ``Professional'' as defined
in Exchange Rule 16.1.
    \7\ ``Penny Pilot Securities'' are those issues quoted pursuant
to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01.
    \8\ ISOs directed to Nasdaq OMX BX LLC (``Nasdaq BX'') in non-
Penny Pilot Securities which yield fee code D2 and ISOs directed to
the C2 Options Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') and Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC
(``Nasdaq PHLX'') which yield fee code D3 are charged $0.95 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to continue to offer routing services to its Members
at prices that approximate the cost to the Exchange, the Exchange is
proposing to amend those rates as follows: (i) the fee for Customer
orders routed to ISE in non-Penny Pilot Securities and any Customer
orders routed to MIAX, BOX or NYSE MKT (fee codes ID, MC, OC and XC,
respectively) would be increased to $0.15 per contract; (ii) the fee
for Non-Customer Orders in non-Penny Pilot Securities routed to Arca
would be increased to $1.15 per contract (fee code AG); (iii) the fee
for ISOs directed to NOM, Arca, or ISE Gemini would be increased to
$1.25 per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Securities (fee code D1); (iv)
the fee for ISOs directed to other options exchanges would be increased
to $0.75 per contract (fee code D4); \9\ (v) the fee for Non-Customer
orders routed to MIAX would be increased to $0.85 per contract (fee
code MF); (vi) the fee for Non-Customer orders routed to BOX would be
increased to $1.20 (fee code OF); (vii) the fee for Non-Customer orders
routed to NOM in Penny Pilot Securities would be increased to $0.70
(fee code QF); and (viii) the fee for Non-Customer orders routed to NOM
in non-Penny Pilot Securities would be increased to $1.25 (fee code
QG).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange does not propose to amend the fees charged for
ISOs directed to Nasdaq BX in non-Penny Pilot Securities which yield
fee code D2 and ISOs directed to the C2 and Nasdaq PHLX which yield
fee code D3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously and as set forth above, the Exchange's current
approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain
sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other
options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by
each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (i.e., clearing
fees, connectivity and other infrastructure costs, membership fees,
etc.) (collectively, ``Routing Costs''). The Exchange then monitors the
fees charged as compared to the costs of its routing services and
adjusts its routing

fees and/or sub-categories to ensure that the Exchange's fees do indeed
result in a rough approximation of overall Routing Costs, and are not
significantly higher or lower in any area. In performing this analysis,
the Exchange has concluded that certain orders that it was routing to
other options exchanges were costing more than it was charging, and in
one case, were costing significantly less than it was charging. As a
result, and in order to avoid subsidizing routing to away options
exchanges and to continue providing quality routing services, the
Exchange proposes relatively modest increases and adjustments to the
charges assessed for the orders described above.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule immediately.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change on
December 1, 2015 (SR-EDGX-2015-57). On December 10, 2015, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted filing SR-BATS-2015-63
[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\11\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services
if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to approximate
the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other
applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. The Exchange believes
that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a
reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that its proposal to modify fees is fair, equitable
and reasonable because the fees are generally an approximation of the
cost to the Exchange for routing orders to such exchanges. Absent the
proposed changes, the Exchange has concluded that certain orders that
it was routing to other options exchanges would cost more than its
current fees. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed
increases are fair, equitable and reasonable because they will help the
Exchange to avoid subsidizing routing to away options exchanges and to
continue providing quality routing services. The Exchange believes that
its fee structure for orders routed to various venues is a fair and
equitable approach to pricing, as it provides certainty with respect to
execution fees at away options exchanges. Under its straightforward fee
structure, taking all costs to the Exchange into account, the Exchange
may operate at a slight gain or slight loss for orders routed to and
executed at away options exchanges. As a general matter, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees will allow it to recoup and cover its
costs of providing routing services to such exchanges. The Exchange
notes that routing through the Exchange is voluntary. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed fee structure for orders routed to and
executed at these away options exchanges is fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies equally to all Members.
    The Exchange reiterates 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 to be excessive or providers
of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive. Finally,
the Exchange notes that it constantly evaluates its routing fees,
including profit and loss attributable to routing, as applicable, in
connection with the operation of a flat fee routing service, and would
consider future adjustments to the proposed pricing structure to the
extent it was recouping a significant profit or loss from routing to
away options exchanges.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As it relates to the proposed
changes to routing fees, the proposed changes will assist the Exchange
in recouping costs for routing orders to other options exchanges on
behalf of its participants in a manner that is a better approximation
of actual costs than is currently in place and that reflects pricing
changes by various options exchanges as well as increases to other
Routing Costs incurred by the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that
Members may choose to mark their orders as ineligible for routing to
avoid incurring routing fees.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(8) (describing ``Post Only
Orders'') and Exchange Rule 21.9(a)(1) (describing the routing
process, which requires orders to be designated as available for
routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 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 \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 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 proposal 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 No. SR-EDGX-2015-63 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-EDGX-2015-63. 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 such filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2015-63 and should be
submitted on or before January 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32536 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37248-37252]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15381]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0427; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-09-
04, which applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. AD
2011-09-04 currently requires repetitive inspections for any damage of
the lower surface of the center wing box, and corrective actions if
necessary. Since we issued AD 2011-09-04, an evaluation by the design
approval holder (DAH) indicated that the center wing box is subject to
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would also require
replacement of the center wing box, which would terminate the
repetitive inspections. This proposed AD would also add a concurrent
related investigative action. We are proposing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of the lower surface of the center wing box,
which could result in structural failure of the wings.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The

street address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,
1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0427;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, WFD will likely
occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough
without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    On April 12, 2011, we issued AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76
FR 28626, May 18, 2011), for all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G
airplanes. AD 2011-09-04 requires repetitive inspections for any damage
of the lower surface of the center wing box, and corrective actions if
necessary. AD 2011-09-04 resulted from reports of fatigue cracks of the
lower surface of the center wing box. We issued AD 2011-09-04 to detect
and correct such cracks, which could result in the structural failure
of the wings.

Actions Since AD 2011-09-04 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May
18, 2011), the DAH completed an evaluation that indicated removal of a
recurring inspection, establishment of a terminating action, and
reference to certain center wing box replacement service information is
necessary to safeguard the airplane against WFD up to the LOV of the
airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-790), Revision
3, dated July 8, 2013, including Appendix A, dated July 8, 2013, and
Appendixes B, C, D, E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated March 8,
2007. This service information is essentially the same as Lockheed
Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-790), Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007,
including Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated
March 8, 2007, which is referred to as the appropriate source of
service information in AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626,
May 18, 2011). Revision 3 adds a concurrent related investigative
action, which involves a bolt hole eddy current inspection for cracking
at additional fastener locations.
    We also reviewed Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-94, dated
December 3, 2013, which describes procedures for replacement of the
center wing box. Accomplishing the replacement eliminates the need for
repetitive inspections.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    Accomplishing the replacement of the center wing box specified in
paragraph (k) of this proposed AD affects the requirements of the
following ADs:
     AD 2011-09-03, Amendment 39-16665 (77 FR 22311, April 21,
2011), which requires repetitive eddy current inspections to detect
cracks in the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings, and
corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive replacements of rainbow
fittings, which would extend the repetitive interval for the next
inspection. We issued this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks,
which could grow large and lead to the failure of the fitting and a
catastrophic failure of the center wing.
     AD 2011-15-02, Amendment 39-16749 (76 FR 41647, July 15,
2011), which superseded AD 2008-20-01, Amendment 39-15680 (73 FR 56464,
September 29, 2008). AD 2011-15-02 continues to require revising the
maintenance program by incorporating

new airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy the
requirements of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 88
(``SFAR 88,'' Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-
83), which is part of a regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel
Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and
Inspection Requirements'' (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). AD 2011-15-02
also continues to require accomplishing certain fuel system
modifications, initial inspections of certain repetitive fuel system
limitations to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. AD
2011-15-02 corrects certain part number references, adds an additional
inspection area and, for certain airplanes, requires certain actions to
be re-accomplished according to revised service information. AD 2011-
15-02 was issued to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside
fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or
maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
     AD 2012-06-09, Amendment 39-16990 (77 FR 21404, April 10,
2012), which requires revising the maintenance/inspection program to
include inspections that will give no less than the required damage
tolerance analysis for each principal structural element (PSE), doing
repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all PSEs, and repairing
cracked structure. We issued this AD to maintain the continued
structural integrity of the fleet.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2011-
09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011). This proposed AD
would also require replacement of the center wing box, which would
terminate the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD would add a
concurrent related investigative action, which involves a bolt hole
eddy current inspection for cracking at additional fastener locations.
    We revised the phrase ``accomplishment of the service bulletin'' in
paragraph (g)(3) of AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May
18, 2011), to specify ``accomplishment of the inspection specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD.''
    We also have removed Note 1 of AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666
(76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011). The text in Note 1 is informational and is
not a requirement of this proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Although the service information specifies that operators may
contact the manufacturer for using adjusted thresholds and intervals,
using alternative repetitive inspection intervals, and using
alternative inspection methods, this proposed AD would require
operators to obtain approval of any alternative thresholds, intervals,
or inspection methods from the FAA.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is replaced before WFD develops in the affected airplanes.
Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before
it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the
compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service information related
to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly
warrant such an extension.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per        Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost            Parts cost          product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection [retained action      2,000 work-hours x $85   N/A...............        $170,000  $2,550,000 per
 from AD 2011-09-04, Amendment    per hour = $170,000.                                         inspection cycle.
 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18,
 2011)].
Replacement [new proposed        4,800 work-hours x $85   $5,000,000........       5,408,000  $81,120,000.
 action].                         per hour = $408,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repair that
would be required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this repair:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                            Labor cost              Parts cost        Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair [retained from AD 2011-09-04,    1,000 to 3,000 work-hours x           $30,000   $115,000 to $285,000.
 Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May    $85 per hour = $85,000 to
 18, 2011)].                             $255,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed regulation is within the scope of
that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely
to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011), and adding
the following new AD:

Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company:
Docket No. FAA-2014-0427; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-218-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 15,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR
28626, May 18, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G
airplanes; certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) that indicated the center wing box is subject to
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking of the lower surface of the center wing
box, which could result in structural failure of the wings.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of
AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011), with
revised service information. At the time specified in paragraphs
(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, whichever occurs latest: Do a
nondestructive inspection of the lower surface of the center wing
box for any damage, in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin
382-57-85 (82-790), Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007, including
Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated March
8, 2007; or Revision 3, dated July 8, 2013, including Appendix A,
dated July 8, 2013, and Appendixes B, C, D, E, F, and G, all
Revision 1, all dated March 8, 2007. Repeat the inspections
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,000 flight hours. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-
57-85 (82-790), Revision 3, dated July 8, 2013, including Appendix
A, dated July 8, 2013, and Appendixes B, C, D, E, F, and G, all
Revision 1, all dated March 8, 2007, for the actions required by
this paragraph.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours on
the center wing.
    (2) Within 365 days after June 22, 2011 (the effective date of
AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011).
    (3) Within 10,000 flight hours on the center wing box after the
accomplishment of the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD, if done before June 22, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-09-
04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011).

(h) Retained Corrective Action With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (h) of
AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011), with
no changes. If any damage is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair any damage,
using a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved
by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this paragraph, the
Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Retained Exceptions to Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-
790), Revision 2, Dated August 23, 2007, Including Appendixes A, B, C,
D, E, F, and G, All Revision 1, All Dated March 8, 2007, With No
Changes

    (1) This paragraph restates the exception in paragraph (i) of AD
2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011), with no
changes. Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-790), Revision 2,
dated August 23, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, D, E, F, and G,
all Revision 1, all dated March 8, 2007, specifies that operators
may adjust thresholds and intervals, use alternative repetitive
inspection intervals, and use alternative inspection methods, if
applicable. However, this AD requires that any alternative methods
or intervals be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO. For any
alternative methods or intervals to be approved by the Manager,
Atlanta ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval
letter must specifically refer to this AD.
    (2) This paragraph restates the exception in paragraph (j) of AD
2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011), with no
changes. Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-790),
Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, D,
E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated March 8, 2007, specifies that
alternative repetitive inspection intervals may be used for cold-
worked holes, this AD does not allow the longer interval. This AD
requires that all cold-worked and non-cold-worked holes be re-
inspected at 10,000-flight-hour intervals.
    (3) This paragraph restates the exception in paragraph (k) of AD
2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011), with no
changes. Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-790),
Revision 2, dated August 23, 2007, including Appendixes A, B, C, D,
E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated March 8, 2007, describes
procedures for submitting a report of any damages, this AD does not
require such action.

(j) New Inspection and Corrective Action

    As of the effective date of this AD, concurrently with
accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD:
Do all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with
Appendix A of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-790), Revision
3, dated July 8, 2013. If any cracking or damage is found during any
related investigative action: Before further flight, repair all
cracking and damage, using a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta
ACO, FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Atlanta
ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter
must specifically refer to this AD.

(k) New Replacement (Terminating Action)

    Before the accumulation of 50,000 total flight hours, or within
24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later: Replace the center wing box, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-94,
dated December 3, 2013. Accomplishing the replacement terminates the
inspections required by this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (k) of this AD: A note in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-94, dated December
3, 2013, instructs operators to contact Lockheed if any assistance
is needed in accomplishing the service bulletin. However, any
deviation from the instructions provided in the service information
must be approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) as
specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.

(l) New Exceptions to Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-790),
Revision 3, Dated July 8, 2013, Including Appendix A, Dated July 8,
2013, and Appendixes B, C, D, E, and G, all Revision 1, All Dated March
8, 2007

    (1) Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-790), Revision 3,
dated July 8, 2013, including Appendix A, dated July 8, 2013, and
Appendixes B, C, D, E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated March 8,
2007, specifies that operators may adjust thresholds and intervals,
use alternative repetitive inspection intervals, and use alternative
inspection methods. However, this AD requires that any alternative
thresholds, intervals, or inspection methods be approved by the
Manager, Atlanta ACO. For any alternative thresholds, intervals, or
inspection methods to be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as
required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (2) Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-85 (82-790), Revision
3, dated July 8, 2013, including Appendix A, dated July 8, 2013, and
Appendixes B, C, D, E, F, and G, all Revision 1, all dated March 8,
2007, describes procedures for submitting a report of any damages,
this AD does not require such action.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph restates the credit provided in paragraph (l)
of AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011).
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph
(g) of AD, if those actions were performed before June 22, 2011 (the
effective date of AD 2011-09-04), using Lockheed Service Bulletin
382-57-85 (82-790), Revision 1, dated March 8, 2007, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph restates the credit provided in paragraph (m)
of AD 2011-09-04, Amendment 39-16666 (76 FR 28626, May 18, 2011).
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph
(g) of AD, if those actions were performed before June 22, 2011 (the
effective date of AD 2011-09-04), using Lockheed Service Bulletin
382-57-85 (82-790), dated August 4, 2005, which is not incorporated
by reference in this AD.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement required
by paragraph (k) of AD, if the replacement was performed before the
effective date of this AD using Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-90,
dated November 5, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in
this AD.

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph
(o)(1) of this AD.
    (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.

(o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Carl Gray,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 2014.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15381 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P