[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49217-49220]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17649]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827; NHTSA-2016-0068; FRL-9949-54-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS97; RIN 2127-AL76

Notice of Availability of Midterm Evaluation Draft Technical
Assessment Report for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicle GHG
Emissions and CAFE Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of
Transportation (DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have established a
coordinated National Program for Federal standards for greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) for light-
duty vehicles. As part of that National Program, EPA and NHTSA, along
with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have jointly prepared
and are requesting comment on a Draft Technical Assessment Report. In
the Draft Technical Assessment Report, the agencies examine a wide
range of issues relevant to GHG emissions and CAFE standards for model
years (MY) 2022-2025, and share with the public their initial technical
analyses of those issues. EPA is required to prepare the Draft
Technical Assessment Report by its rules which establish the Midterm
Evaluation. The draft TAR is the first formal step in the Midterm
Evaluation process. NHTSA is participating in the Midterm Evaluation
process as part of its de novo rulemaking to establish final CAFE
standards for MY 2022-2025. CARB, in its support of the National
Program in lieu of a separate California program, committed to
participating in the Midterm Evaluation process. The agencies will
fully consider public comments received on the Draft Technical
Assessment Report as they proceed with the Midterm Evaluation.

DATES: Comments: In order for comments to be most helpful to this
ongoing Midterm Evaluation process, the agencies encourage parties
wishing to comment on the Draft Technical Assessment Report to submit
their comments by September 26, 2016. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for more information about the Midterm

Evaluation process and the Draft Technical Assessment Report.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0827 and/or Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0068, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn. The EPA and NHTSA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
and NHTSA will not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the submission to the official dockets (i.e., located
elsewhere on the web, cloud, or in another file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    NHTSA also allows comments to be submitted by the following
methods:
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Since CARB is a joint author on the Draft Technical Assessment Report,
the agencies are requesting that commenters, in addition to submitting
comments to the EPA and/or NHTSA docket, also submit their comments
directly to CARB at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm2/bcsubform.php?listname=drafttar2016-ws.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
EPA: Christopher Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-
4584; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>NHTSA: Rebecca Yoon, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Public Participation

    NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of the Draft Technical
Assessment Report discussed below. This section describes how you can
participate in this process.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    For the convenience of all parties, comments submitted to the EPA
docket will be considered comments submitted to the NHTSA docket, and
vice versa. Therefore, commenters only need to submit comments to
either one of the two agency dockets, although they may choose to
submit comments to both. Comments that are submitted for consideration
by one agency should be identified as such, and comments that are
submitted for consideration by both agencies should be identified as
such. Absent such identification, each agency will exercise its best
judgment to determine whether a comment is directed at its individual
work.
    Further instructions for submitting comments to either the EPA or
NHTSA docket are described below.
    EPA: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.\1\ Do not submit information that you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This statement constitutes notice to commenters pursuant to
40 CFR 2.209(c) that EPA will share confidential information
received with NHTSA unless commenters specify that they wish to
submit their CBI only to EPA and not to both agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA: Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that
your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the
Docket number NHTSA-2016-0068 in your comments. Your comments must not
be more than 15 pages long. NHTSA established this limit to encourage
you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you
may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments. If you are submitting comments
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents
submitted be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
process, thus allowing the agencies to search and copy certain portions
of your submissions. Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act,
in order for the substantive data to be relied upon and used by the
agencies, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in
the OMB and Department of Transportation (DOT) Data Quality Act
guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in
preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may
be accessed at http://www.dot.gov/dataquality.htm.

Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the action by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at

your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified in the DATES section above.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    NHTSA: If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket
Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a
self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your
comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return
the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    Any confidential business information (CBI) submitted to one of the
agencies will also be available to the other agency. However, as with
all public comments, any CBI information only needs to be submitted to
either one of the agencies' dockets and it will be available to the
other. Following are specific instructions for submitting CBI to either
agency.
    EPA: Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or
email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim
to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    NHTSA: 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
below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the EPA Docket Center (details provided at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/epa-docket-center-reading-room) or NHTSA
Docket Management Facility by going to the street addresses given above
under ADDRESSES.

B. Overview of the Midterm Evaluation and the Draft Technical
Assessment Report

    The EPA and NHTSA have conducted two joint rulemakings to establish
a coordinated National Program for stringent Federal CAFE and GHG
emissions standards for light-duty vehicles. The agencies finalized the
first set of National Program standards covering MYs 2012-2016 in May
2010 \3\ and the second set of standards, covering MYs 2017-2025 for
EPA and final standards for 2017-2021 and augural standards for 2022 to
2025 for NHTSA, in October 2012.\4\ The National Program establishes
standards that increase in stringency year-over-year from MY 2012
through the final years of the program. Through the coordination of the
National Program with the California standards, automakers can build
one single fleet of vehicles across the U.S. that satisfies all
applicable requirements, and consumers can continue to have a full
range of vehicle choices that meet their needs. In the 2012 final rule,
the agencies projected that the National Program would reach a level by
2025 that nearly doubles fuel economy and cuts GHG emissions in half as
compared to MY 2008, and would reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)
pollution by 6 billion metric tons and oil consumption by 12 billion
barrels over the lifetime of MY 2012-2025 vehicles. In addition, the
standards are projected to provide significant savings for consumers
due to reduced fuel use, and thus reduced expenditures on fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.
    \4\ 77 FR 62624, October 15, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rulemaking establishing the National Program for MY 2017-2025
light-duty vehicles included a regulatory requirement for EPA to
conduct a Midterm Evaluation (MTE) of the GHG standards established for
MYs 2022-2025.\5\ The 2012 final rule preamble also states that ``[t]he
mid-term evaluation reflects the rules' long time frame, and, for
NHTSA, the agency's statutory obligation to conduct a de novo
rulemaking in order to establish final standards for MYs 2022-2025.''
NHTSA will consider information gathered as part of the MTE record,
including information submitted through public comments, in the
comprehensive de novo rulemaking it must undertake to set CAFE
standards for MYs 2022-2025. Through the MTE, EPA will determine no
later than April 1, 2018 whether the GHG standards for MYs 2022-2025,
established in 2012, are still appropriate, within the meaning of
section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, in light of the record then before
the Administrator, given the latest available data and information. See
40 CFR 86.1818-12(h). EPA's decision could go one of three ways: The
standards remain appropriate, the standards should be less stringent,
or the standards should be more stringent. In addition, ``[i]n order to
align the agencies' proceedings for MYs 2022-2025 and to maintain a
joint national program, EPA and NHTSA will finalize their actions
related to MYs 2022-2025 standard concurrently. If the EPA
determination is that the standards may change, the agencies will issue
a joint NPRM and joint final rules.'' See 77 FR 62628 (October 15,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MTE is a collaborative, data-driven, and transparent process
that will be a holistic assessment of all of factors considered in
standards setting, and the expected impact of those factors on
manufacturers' ability to comply, without placing decisive weight on
any particular factor or projection. See 77 FR 62784 (October 15,
2012). The MTE analysis is to be as robust and comprehensive as that in
the original 2012 final rule. Id. EPA and NHTSA also are closely
coordinating with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in
conducting the MTE to better ensure the continuation of the National
Program. Id. The agencies fully expect to conduct the MTE in close
coordination with CARB.
    The Draft TAR is the first formal step in the MTE process and is
being issued jointly by EPA, NHTSA, and CARB for

public comment. EPA is required to prepare and seek public comment on
the Draft TAR.\6\ The Draft TAR is a technical report, not a decision
document. The Draft TAR is an opportunity for all three agencies to
share with the public the initial technical analyses of a wide range of
issues relevant to the MY 2022-2025 standards. The Draft TAR is a first
step in the process that will ultimately inform, for EPA, whether the
MY 2022-2025 GHG standards adopted by EPA in 2012 should remain in
place or should change, and, for NHTSA, what MY 2022-2025 CAFE
standards will be maximum feasible under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (49 U.S.C. 32902). The preamble to the 2012
final rule states that ``[t]he TAR will examine the same issues and
underlying analyses and projections considered in the original
rulemaking including technical and other analyses related to each
agency's authority to set standards as well as any relevant new issues
that may present themselves.'' 77 FR 62784 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies have conducted extensive research and analyses to
support the MTE, as discussed throughout the Draft TAR. As part of
gathering robust data and information to inform the MTE, the agencies
also have conducted extensive outreach with a wide range of
stakeholders--including auto manufacturers, automotive suppliers, non-
governmental organizations, consumer groups, labor unions, state and
local governments, the academic and research communities, and others.
Among other things, the Draft TAR presents analyses reflecting this
research and information obtained during the agencies' outreach,
presents updated assessments of available technologies' effectiveness
and costs since the 2012 final rule, and offers an opportunity for
public comment on the agencies' analyses thus far. The agencies will
fully consider public comments on the Draft TAR as they continue the
MTE process.
    The Draft TAR and related materials are available in the public
dockets for this action (see ADDRESSES above) and at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/mte.htm and http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/CAFE+-+Fuel+Economy/ld-cafe-midterm-evaluation-2022-25.

    Dated: July 15, 2016.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
    Dated: July 15, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-17649 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 25747]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10538]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, May 7,
2015 at 12 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Adjudicatory matters; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 30, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10538 Filed 5-1-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17032-17034]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0154; Project Identifier AD-2021-01153-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report of a crack found in a front spar lower chord
undergoing an underwing longeron replacement. This proposed AD would
require repetitive inspections for cracking of the left and right side
ring chords, repair angles, front spar lower chords, and front spar
webs (depending on configuration) common to the underwing longeron
located at station (STA) 1035; modification of the front spar lower
chord for some airplanes; repetitive post-modification inspections; and
applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 9,
2022.

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 https://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 NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
0154.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0154; 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 NPRM, any comments
received, and

other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0154; Project Identifier
AD-2021-01153-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Luis
Cortez-Muniz, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-
231-3958; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the
FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed
in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has received a report of a crack found in the front spar
lower chord of a Model 777-300ER airplane undergoing an underwing
longeron replacement. The affected airplane had 6,303 flight cycles and
53,727 flight hours. The crack was found near a critical fastener hole
in the front spar lower chord; the underwing longeron was not cracked.
Cracking in the front spar lower chord can lead to cracking in the
front spar web. The front spar web is protected against fuel leaks from
small cracks by a secondary barrier on the forward side of the front
spar bulkhead. If a crack in the front spar web grows to a critical
length, that cracking could result in a fuel leak from the center wing
tank into the environmental control system (ECS) mix bay. This
condition, if not addressed, could result in a fuel leak and fire
hazard, or in the case of more severe cracking, also affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB,
dated October 8, 2021. This service information specifies procedures
for repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC), detailed, and
ultrasonic inspections (depending on configuration) for cracking of the
left and right side ring chords, repair angles, front spar lower
chords, and front spar webs (depending on configuration) common to the
underwing longeron located at STA 1035; modification of the front spar
lower chord for some airplanes; repetitive post-modification
inspections; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions
include repair. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described and except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0154.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 261 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection(s)..................  44 work-hours x $85 per              $0  $3,750 per          $976,140 per
                                  hour = $3,750 per                        inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
Modification *.................  137 work-hours x $85            $47,964  $59,609...........  Up to $15,557,949.
                                  per hour = $11,645.
Post-modification inspection(s)  46 work-hours x $85 per              $0  $3,910 per          Up to $1,020,510
 *.                               hour = $3,910 per                        inspection cycle.   per inspection
                                  inspection cycle.                                            cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Number of affected airplanes that will be required to do this action is unknown.

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the repairs specified in this proposed AD.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

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.
    The FAA is 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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2022-0154; Project Identifier AD-
2021-01153-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by May 9, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR,
-300, -300ER, and 777F airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found in a front
spar lower chord undergoing an underwing longeron replacement. The
FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which in
combination with cracking in the front spar web, could result in a
fuel leak and fire hazard, or in the case of more severe cracking,
could also affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB, dated October 8, 2021,
do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
777-57A0122 RB, dated October 8, 2021. Actions identified as
terminating action in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122
RB, dated October 8, 2021, terminate the applicable required actions
of this AD, provided the terminating action is done in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB, dated October 8, 2021.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-5A0122, dated October 8, 2021, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB, dated October 8, 2021.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-
57A0122 RB, dated October 8, 2021, use the phrase ``the original
issue date of Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB,'' this AD
requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB,
dated October 8, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO 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 responsible Flight Standards 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)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Luis Cortez-
Muniz, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:
206-231-3958; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on March 7, 2022.
Derek Morgan,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-06319 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69659-69662]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28792]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0583; FRL-8891-4]

Methacrylic Acid-Methyl Methacrylate-Polyethylene Glycol
Monomethyl Ether Methacrylate Graft Copolymer; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-
polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer when
used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Akzo
Noel Surface Chemistry LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of
methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl
ether methacrylate graft copolymer on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 9, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 9, 2012,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0583. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alganesh Debesai, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0583 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 9, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0583, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of Friday, August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53372)
(FRL-8884-9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7875)
filed by Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC, 909 Mueller Avenue,
Chattanooga, TN 37406. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be
amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-
polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer; CAS
Reg. No. 111740-36-4. That notice included a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's
request. The Agency did not receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established. Consistent with FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action and considered its
validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this
information to human risk. EPA has also considered available
information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major
identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In
the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers,
the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of
polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a
polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for
identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d).
Methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl
ether methacrylate graft copolymer conforms to the definition of a
polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria
that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 1,884 is greater than 1,000
and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material
below MW1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional
groups.

    Thus, methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol
monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer meets the criteria for a
polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its
conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to methacrylic
acid-methyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether
methacrylate graft copolymer.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-
polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer could
be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and
drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was
possible. The number average MW of methacrylic acid-methyl
methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft
copolymer is 1,884 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be
poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through
intact human skin. Since methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-
polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer
conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no
concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios
that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a
tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-polyethylene
glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and methacrylic acid-
methyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate
graft copolymer does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced
by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-
polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer does
not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of methacrylic acid-methyl
methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft
copolymer, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the
risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is
unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-
polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for methacrylic acid-methyl
methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft
copolymer.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of methacrylic acid-
methyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate
graft copolymer from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct

effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the
national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
otherwise have any unique impacts on local governments. Thus, the
Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 6, 2011.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymers to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol     111740-36-4
 monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer, minimum
 number average molecular weight (in amu), 1,800........

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-28792 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68684-68686]
[DOCID:fr09no10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0870; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-045-AD;
Amendment 39-16505; AD 2010-23-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-500 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    It has been found the occurrences of failure of the Flow Control
Shutoff Valve (FCSOV) in the closed position. Failure of the two
valves (left and right) can cause the loss of the pneumatic source,
and lead to loss of the cabin pressurization.
    Since this condition affects flight safety, a corrective action
is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance
with this AD.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 14, 2010.
    On December 14, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at 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 service information identified in this AD, contact EMBRAER
Empresa Brasileira de Aeron[aacute]utica S.A., Phenom Maintenance
Support, Av. Brig. Farina Lima, 2170, Sao Jose dos Campos--SP, CEP:
12227-901--P.O. Box: 38/2, BRASIL, telephone: ++55 12 3927-5383; fax:
++55 12 3927-2610; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.embraer.com.br. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 was published in the Federal Register on September 1, 2010
(75 FR

53609). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found the occurrences of failure of the Flow Control
Shutoff Valve (FCSOV) in the closed position. Failure of the two
valves (left and right) can cause the loss of the pneumatic source,
and lead to loss of the cabin pressurization.
    Since this condition affects flight safety, a corrective action
is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance
with this AD.

The MCAI requires replacing both FCSOVs with new and improved FCSOVs.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket

Comments

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

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 79 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $10,487 per
product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $855,333, or $10,827 per product.
    According to Embraer, the parts cost of this AD may be covered
under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all cost in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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); and
    (3) 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2010-23-16 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):
Amendment 39-16505; Docket No. FAA-2010-0870; Directorate Identifier
2010-CE-045-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December
14, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-500 airplanes, serial numbers 50000005 through
50000118, 50000120, 50000122 through 50000126, 50000128, and
50000131, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 36:
Pneumatic.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    It has been found the occurrences of failure of the Flow Control
Shutoff Valve (FCSOV) in the closed position. Failure of the two
valves (left and right) can cause the loss of the pneumatic source,
and lead to loss of the cabin pressurization.
    Since this condition affects flight safety, a corrective action
is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance
with this AD.

The MCAI requires replacing both FCSOVs with new and improved
FCSOVs.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, at the next scheduled maintenance check
or within 12 months after December 14, 2010 (the effective date of
this AD) or within 600 hours time-in-service after December 14, 2010
(the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace
both flow control shutoff valves, part number (P/N) 1300230-13 and
P/N 1300230-23, with P/N 1300230-15 and P/N 1300230-25. Do the
replacements following

EMBRAER Phenom Service Bulletin 500-21-0001, dated December 9, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI AG[Ecirc]NCIA NACIONAL DE
AVIA[Ccedil][Atilde]O CIVIL--BRAZIL (ANAC) AD No. 2010-08-01, dated
September 3, 2010; and EMBRAER Phenom Service Bulletin 500-21-0001,
dated December 9, 2009, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use EMBRAER Phenom Service Bulletin 500-21-0001,
dated December 9, 2009, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
EMBRAER Empresa Brasileira de Aeron[aacute]utica S.A., Phenom
Maintenance Support, Av. Brig. Farina Lima, 2170, Sao Jose dos
Campos--SP, CEP: 12227-901--P.O. Box: 38/2, BRASIL, telephone: ++55
12 3927-5383; fax: ++55 12 3927-2610; E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://
www.embraer.com.br.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 29, 2010.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-27974 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43918-43921]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15558]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89317; File No. SR-MIAX-2020-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule to Increase the Number
of Additional Limited Service MIAX Express Interface Ports Available to
Market Makers

July 14, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 30, 2020, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX
Options'' 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to increase the number of additional
Limited Service MIAX Express Interface (``MEI'') Ports available to
Market Makers.\3\ The Exchange does not propose to amend the fees for
additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to Lead Market Makers
(``LMMs''), Primary Lead Market Makers (``PLMMs''), and Registered
Market Makers (``RMMs'') collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to offer two (2)
additional Limited Service MEI Ports to Market Makers. The Exchange
does not propose to amend the fees charged for the additional Limited
Service MEI Ports.
    Currently, MIAX assesses monthly MEI Port Fees on Market Makers
based upon the number of MIAX matching engines \4\ used by the Market
Maker. Market Makers are allocated two (2) Full Service MEI Ports \5\
and two (2) Limited Service MEI Ports \6\ per matching engine to which
they connect. The Full Service MEI Ports, Limited Service MEI Ports,
and the additional Limited Service MEI Ports all include access to
MIAX's primary and secondary data centers and its disaster recovery
center. Market Makers may request additional Limited Service MEI Ports
for which they will be assessed the existing $100 monthly fee for each
additional port they request. This fee has been unchanged since
2016.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``matching engine'' is a part of the MIAX electronic
system that processes options quotes and trades on a symbol-by-
symbol basis. Some matching engines will process option classes with
multiple root symbols, and other matching engines will be dedicated
to one single option root symbol (for example, options on SPY will
be processed by one single matching engine that is dedicated only to
SPY). A particular root symbol may only be assigned to a single
designated matching engine. A particular root symbol may not be
assigned to multiple matching engines. See Fee Schedule, Section
5)d)ii), note 29.
    \5\ Full Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send Market Maker quotes, eQuotes, and quote purge
messages to the MIAX System. Full Service MEI Ports are also capable
of receiving administrative information. Market Makers are limited
to two Full Service MEI Ports per matching engine. See Fee Schedule,
Section 5)d)ii), note 27.
    \6\ Limited Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send eQuotes and quote purge messages only, but not
Market Maker Quotes, to the MIAX System. Limited Service MEI Ports
are also capable of receiving administrative information. Market
Makers initially receive two Limited Service MEI Ports per matching
engine. See Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), note 28.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79666 (December 22,
2016), 81 FR 96133 (December 29, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange originally added the Limited Service MEI Ports to
enhance the MEI Port connectivity made available to Market Makers, and
has subsequently made additional Limited Service MEI Ports available to
Market

Makers.\8\ Limited Service MEI Ports have been well received by Market
Makers since their addition. The Exchange now proposes to offer to
Market Makers the ability to purchase an additional two (2) Limited
Service MEI Ports per matching engine over and above the current six
(6) additional Limited Service MEI Ports per matching engine that are
available for purchase by Market Makers. The Exchange proposes making a
corresponding change to footnote 30 of the Exchange's Fee Schedule to
specify that Market Makers will now be limited to purchasing eight (8)
additional Limited Service MEI Ports per matching engine, for a total
of ten (10) per matching engine. All fees related to MEI Ports shall
remain unchanged and Market Makers that voluntarily purchase the
additional Limited Service MEI Ports will remain subject to the
existing $100 monthly fee per port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70137 (August 8,
2013), 78 FR 49586 (August 14, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-39); 70903
(November 20, 2013), 78 FR 70615 (November 26, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-
52); 78950 (September 27, 2016), 81 FR 68084 (October 3, 2016) (SR-
MIAX-2016-33); and 79198 (October 31, 2016), 81 FR 76988 (November
4, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is increasing the number of additional Limited Service
MEI Ports because the Exchange is expanding its network. This network
expansion is necessary due to increased customer demand and increased
volatility in the marketplace, both of which have translated into
increased message traffic rates across the network. Consequently, this
network expansion, which increases the number of switches supporting
customer facing systems, is necessary in order to provide sufficient
access to new and existing Members,\9\ to maintain a sufficient amount
of network capacity head-room, and to continue to provide the same
level of service across the Exchange's low-latency, high-throughput
technology environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange has 8 network switches that support the
entire customer base of MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL. The Exchange plans
to increase this to 10 switches, which will increase the number of
available customer ports by 25%. This increase in the number of
available customer ports will enable the Exchange to continue to
provide sufficient and equal access to MIAX Systems to all Members.
Absent the proposed increase in available MEI Ports, the Exchange
projects that its current inventory will be depleted and it will lack
sufficient capacity to continue to meet Members' access needs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ because the proposed
additional Limited Service MEI Ports will be available to all Market
Makers and the current fees for the additional Limited Service MEI
Ports apply equally to all Market Makers regardless of type, and access
to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange is proposing to increase the number of
available Limited Service MEI Ports because the Exchange is expanding
its network. This network expansion is necessary due to increased
customer demand and increased volatility in the marketplace, both of
which have translated into increased message traffic rates across the
network. Consequently, this network expansion, which increases the
number of switches supporting customer facing systems, is necessary in
order to provide sufficient and equal access to new and existing
Members, to maintain a sufficient amount of network capacity head-room,
and to continue to provide the same level of service across the
Exchange's low-latency, high-throughput technology environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange has 8 network switches that support the
entire customer base of MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL. The Exchange plans
to increase this to 10 switches, which will increase the number of
available customer ports by 25%. This increase in the number of
available customer ports will enable the Exchange to continue to
provide sufficient and equal access to MIAX Systems for all Members.
Absent the proposed increase in available MEI Ports, the Exchange
projects that its current inventory will be depleted and it will lack
sufficient capacity to continue to meet Members' access needs. Further,
the Exchange notes the decision of whether to purchase two additional
Limited Service MEI Ports is completely optional and it is a business
decision for each Market Maker to determine whether the additional
Limited Service MEI Ports are necessary to meet their business
requirements.
    The Exchange further believes that the availability of the
additional Limited Service MEI Ports is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will enable Market Makers to maintain
uninterrupted access to the MIAX System and consequently enhance the
marketplace by helping Market Makers to better manage risk, thus
preserving the integrity of the MIAX markets, all to the benefit of and
protection of investors and the public as a whole.
    The Exchange also believes that its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because only Market Makers that voluntarily
purchase the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports will be charged
the existing $100 monthly fee per port, which has been unchanged since
2016.\13\ The Exchange does not propose to amend the fees applicable to
additional Limited Service MEI Ports which have been previously filed
with the Commission and become effective after notice and public
comment.\14\ As stated above, the Exchange proposes to expand its
network by making available two additional Limit Service MEI Ports due
to increased customer demand and increased volatility in the
marketplace, both of which have translated into increased message
traffic rates across the network. The cost to expand the network in
this manner is greater than the revenue the Exchange anticipates the
additional Limited Service MEI Ports will generate. Specifically, the
Exchange estimates it will cost approximately $350,000 in capital
expenditures on hardware, software, and other items to expand the
network to make available the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
This estimated cost also includes providing the necessary engineering
and support personnel to transition those Market Makers who wish to
acquire the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 7.
    \14\ See supra notes 7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange projects that approximately six or seven Market Makers
will elect to purchase the additional Limited Service MEI Ports, which
will be subject to the existing monthly fee of $100 per port.
Accordingly, the Exchange projects that

the annualized revenue from the two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports will be approximately $16,800 (assuming that seven Market Makers
purchase the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports). Therefore, the
Exchange's cost in expanding its network to provide its Members with
the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports--approximately $350,000--
is clearly greater than the anticipated annualized revenue the Exchange
expects to bring in from the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports--
approximately $16,800. Thus, the Exchange is not generating a supra-
competitive profit from the provision of these two additional Limited
Service MEI Ports.
    Subjecting the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports to the
existing $100 monthly fee per port is also designed to encourage Market
Makers to be efficient with their port usage, thereby resulting in a
corresponding increase in the efficiency that the Exchange would be
able to realize in managing its aggregate costs for providing the two
additional ports. There is no requirement that any Market Maker
maintain a specific number of Limited Service MEI Ports and a Market
Maker may choose to maintain as many or as few of such ports as each
Market Maker deems appropriate.
    Finally, subjecting the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports to
the existing $100 monthly fee will help to encourage Limited Service
MEI Port usage in a way that aligns with the Exchange's regulatory
obligations. As a national securities exchange, the Exchange is subject
to Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (``Reg. SCI'').\15\ Reg.
SCI Rule 1001(a) requires that the Exchange establish, maintain, and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure
(among other things) that its Reg. SCI systems have levels of capacity
adequate to maintain the Exchange's operational capability and promote
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.\16\ By encouraging Members
to be efficient with their usage of Limited MEI Ports, the current fee
that will continue to apply to the proposed two (2) additional Limited
Service MEI Ports will support the Exchange's Reg. SCI obligations in
this regard by ensuring that unused ports are available to be allocated
based on individual Members needs and as the Exchange's overall order
and trade volumes increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 242.1000-1007.
    \16\ 17 CFR 242.1001(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    MIAX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The proposed rule
change will not impose a burden on competition but will benefit
competition by enhancing the Exchange's ability to compete by providing
additional services to market participants. It is not intended to
address a competitive issue. Rather, the proposed increase in the
number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports available per Market
Maker is intended to allow the Exchange to increase its inventory of
MEI Ports to meet increased Member demand. The Exchange is increasing
the number of available additional Limited Service MEI Ports in
response to Market Maker demand for increased connectivity to the MIAX
System. The Exchange's current inventory may soon be insufficient to
meet those needs. Again, the Exchange is not proposing to amend the
fees for MEI Ports, just to increase the number of MEI Ports available
per Market Maker. The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed
rule change will impose a burden on intramarket competition because the
two additional Limited Service MEI Ports will be available to all
Market Makers on an equal basis. It is a business decision of each
Market Maker whether to pay for the additional Limited Service MEI
Ports.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2020-23 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-MIAX-2020-23. 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-MIAX-2020-23, and should be submitted on
or before August 10, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15558 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75996]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13879-000]

Kahawai Power 2, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

November 29, 2010.
    On November 15, 2010, Kahawai Power 2, LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Makaweli River Water
Power Project, located in Kauai County, in the state of Hawaii. The
sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following developments:
    (1) A proposed 6-foot-high and 40-foot-long reinforced concrete
weir and intake structure on the Kahana stream that will maintain a
normal surface elevation of 2,200 feet msl; (2) a proposed 8-foot-high
and 40-foot-long reinforced concrete weir and intake structure on the
Mokuone stream that will maintain a normal surface elevation of 2,200
feet msl; (3) a new 31,000-foot-long, steel penstock; (4) a proposed
1.500-foot-long, 48-inch diameter, underground tunnel to convey water
from the Mokuone Diversion to the Mokuone Feeder Penstock; (5) a new
1,750-foot-long, 36-inch diameter steel feeder penstock to collect
additional flows from the Mokuone Diversion; (6) a proposed 70-foot-
long, 40-foot-wide, reinforced concrete powerhouse; (7) a proposed 90-
foot-long, 15-foot-wide tailrace; (8) an anticipated proposed
transmission line approximately 4.25 miles in length and a voltage of
69kV; (9) a new gravel roadway approximately 1 mile in length; (10) a
proposed average annual generation of 23,900 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Daniel Irvin, CEO, Free Flow Power Corporation,
33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Mary Greene,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``eFiling''
link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on
``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or,
for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13879) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30593 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P