[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64137-64142]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26673]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65526; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-130]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Re-Institute Fees for NASDAQ Basic and To Offer an Optional Nasdaq
Basic Non-Professional Enterprise License Fee

October 11, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19-b4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 30, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') 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 NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ proposes to re-institute the fees for ``Nasdaq Basic,''
which is a real time data feed combining both NASDAQ's Best Bid and
Offer (``QBBO'') and the ``NASDAQ Last Sale,'' \3\ as well as to offer
an optional NASDAQ Basic Non-Professional Enterprise License Fee for
broker-dealer distribution of NASDAQ Basic data to non-professional
users with which the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship (the
``Basic Non-Professional Enterprise License'' or ``Enterprise
License'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NASDAQ has also filed a companion release to establish
Nasdaq Basic. See SR-NASDAQ-2011-129. Additionally, NASDAQ is aware
that the NASDAQ Basic pilot program has lapsed and NASDAQ intends to
submit a separate filing to address the lapsed period shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics.
* * * * *
7047. Nasdaq Basic
    (a) No change.
    (b) User Fees.
    (1) Except as provided in (b)(2) and (b)(3), for the NASDAQ Basic
product there shall be a per subscriber monthly charge of $10 for
NASDAQ-listed stocks, $5 for NYSE-listed stocks, and $5 for Alternext-
listed stocks; or
    (2) For each non-professional subscriber, as defined in Rule
7011(b), there shall be a per subscriber monthly charge of $0.50 for
NASDAQ-listed stocks, $0.25 for NYSE-listed stocks, and $0.25 for
Alternext-listed stocks; or
    (3) There shall be a per query fee for NASDAQ Basic of $0.0025 for
NASDAQ-listed stocks, $0.0015 for NYSE-listed stocks, and $0.0015 for
Alternext-listed stocks.
    (4) An alternative to (b)(2) a broker-dealer may purchase an
enterprise license at a rate of $100,000 per month for distribution to
non-professional subscribers. The enterprise license entitles a
Distributor to provide Nasdaq Basic to an unlimited number of non-
professional subscribers with whom the firm has a brokerage
relationship. The enterprise license is in addition to the Distributor
Fee listed in (c)(1).
    (c) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to re-institute all of the user and distributor
fees for Nasdaq Basic,\4\ as well as to offer an optional Enterprise
License fee for broker-dealer distribution of Nasdaq Basic data to non-
professional users with which the broker-dealer has a brokerage
relationship. NASDAQ has also filed a companion release to establish
Nasdaq Basic.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59582 (March 16,
2009) 74 FR 12423 (March 24, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-102).
    \5\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the sale of consolidated data and of NASDAQ
proprietary data, NASDAQ charges a fee for professional use of Nasdaq
Basic, and a reduced fee for non-professional use. Specifically, for
each professional user of the Nasdaq Basic product, there is a per
subscriber monthly charge of $10 for NASDAQ-listed stocks, $5 for NYSE-
listed stocks, and $5 for NYSE Amex-listed stocks. For each non-
professional subscriber, there is a per subscriber monthly charge of
$0.50 for NASDAQ-listed stocks, $0.25 for NYSE-listed stocks, and $0.25
for NYSE Amex-listed stocks. ``Non-professional'' will have the same
meaning in this proposed rule as it currently has in Rule 7011(b). For
users that do not require a monthly subscription, there is a per query
option available for Nasdaq Basic, with a fee of $0.0025 for NASDAQ-
listed stocks, $0.0015 for NYSE-listed stocks, and $0.0015 for NYSE
Amex-listed stocks. Vendors that report per query usage to NASDAQ are
permitted to convert to monthly subscription fees when the cost of
individual users' queries exceeds the cost of the monthly subscription.
    As with the distribution of certain other NASDAQ proprietary
products, all distributors of Nasdaq Basic are assessed a monthly
Distributor Fee in addition to any applicable usage fees. Each
Distributor of Nasdaq Basic shall pay a monthly fee of $1,500 for
either internal or external distribution. Also, each Distributor may
pay $1,500 monthly to distribute data derived from Nasdaq Basic to an
unlimited number of non-professional subscribers. The term
``Distributor'' has the same meaning in this proposed rule as currently
set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7019.
    Basic Non-Professional Enterprise License Current Proposal. NASDAQ
will begin offering a voluntary Enterprise License Fee for the Nasdaq
Basic product (NASDAQ Rule 7047) for non-professional usage, which will
cost $100,000 per month. The Basic Non-Professional Enterprise License
is available only to broker-dealers registered under the Act and would
be in lieu of non-professional usage fees only. Additionally, it is an
option only for those customers with whom the broker-dealer maintains a
brokerage relationship. The Enterprise License also includes an
allowance to distribute data, under a certain threshold, to external
professional subscribers with which the firm has a brokerage
relationship.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NASDAQ relies on distributor self-reporting of usage for
products associated with a data feed rather than on individual
contact with each end-user customer. NASDAQ permits distributors to
designate an entire user population as ``non-professional'' provided
that the number of professional subscribers within that user
population does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Basic Non-Professional Enterprise License Fee would be in
addition to the distributor fees in NASDAQ Rule 7047(c). Broker-dealers
that choose to pay the Basic Non-Professional Enterprise License Fee of
$100,000 per month would not pay for any of the non-professional user
fees in NASDAQ Rule 7047(b). The broker-dealer would continue to pay
user fees for those users that are not eligible under the Enterprise
License. The Basic Non-Professional Enterprise License Fee does not
involve the creation of a new data feed, but rather is a new pricing
option for an existing data feed. The Basic Non-Professional Enterprise
License Fee allows firms to use the Nasdaq Basic data for display
purposes only, but does not permit its redistribution in any other
manner. This is not a new service or a new product. NASDAQ is merely
creating a new pricing option specific for the broker-dealer non-
professional user community.
    Background. NASDAQ disseminates market data feeds in two
capacities. First, NASDAQ disseminates consolidated or ``core'' data in
its capacity as Securities Information Processor for the national
market system plan governing securities listed on NASDAQ as a national
securities exchange.\7\ Second, NASDAQ separately disseminates
proprietary or ``non-core'' data in its capacity as a registered
national securities exchange. Non-core data is any data generated by
the NASDAQ Market Center Execution System that is voluntarily
disseminated by NASDAQ separate and apart from the consolidated
data.\8\ NASDAQ has numerous proprietary data products, such as NASDAQ
TotalView, NASDAQ Last Sale, and Nasdaq Basic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (Dec. 2, 2008)
at p. 41.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ continues to seek broader distribution of non-core data and
to reduce the cost of providing non-core data to larger numbers of
investors. In the past, NASDAQ has accomplished this goal in part by
offering similar capped fees, flat fees or enterprise licenses for
professional and non-professional usage of TotalView which contains the
full depth of book data for the NASDAQ Market Center Execution System.
NASDAQ has also implemented these capped/flat fees with other products,
such as NASDAQ Last Sale. NASDAQ believes that the adoption of flat fee
structures or enterprise licenses has led to greater distribution of
market data, particularly among non-professional users.
    Based on input from market participants and market data
distributors, NASDAQ believes that this increase in distribution is
attributable in part to the relief it provides distributors from the
NASDAQ requirement that distributors count and report each non-
professional user of NASDAQ proprietary data. In addition to increased
administrative flexibility, enterprise licenses also encourage broader
distribution by firms that are currently over the fee cap as well as
those that are approaching the cap and wish to take advantage of the
benefits of the program. Further, NASDAQ believes that capping fees in
this manner creates goodwill with broker-dealers and increases
transparency for non-professional users.
    Accordingly, NASDAQ is establishing the Basic Non-Professional
Enterprise License Fee for Nasdaq Basic under NASDAQ Rule 7047(b)(4),
an optional non-professional enterprise license for distributors of
Nasdaq Basic. This Enterprise License Fee includes non-professional
usage fees, but does not include distributor fees.\9\ The Enterprise
License is available only to broker-dealers registered under the Act,
and would cover all non-professional usage

fees to customers with whom the firm has a brokerage relationship with
an allowance to distribute data to external professional subscribers
with which the firm has a brokerage relationship.\10\ Non-broker-dealer
vendors and application service providers would not be eligible for the
Enterprise License; such firms typically pass through the cost of
market data user fees to their customers. The proposed Basic Non-
Professional Enterprise License still requires firms to continue to
report usage in accordance to the current reporting policy. This
information provides NASDAQ with accurate information for monitoring
and auditing purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Distributors who utilize the enterprise license would still
be liable for the applicable distributor fees.
    \10\ Supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Basic Non-Professional Enterprise License Fee is
completely optional and does not replace existing enterprise license
fee alternatives set forth in Rule 7047. Additionally, the proposal
does not impact individual usage fees for any product or in any way
raise the costs of any user of any NASDAQ data product. To the
contrary, the Enterprise License provides broker-dealers with an
additional approach to providing more NASDAQ data at a lower cost.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it provides an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and recipients of
NASDAQ data. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-
regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was
believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available
to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well. Nasdaq Basic is precisely the
sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it
adopted Regulation NMS.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-
day period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule
change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section
19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in
the rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes
such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C. Cir.
2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' ''
NetCoalition, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court's conclusions about
Congressional intent are therefore reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments, which create a presumption that exchange fees, including
market data fees, may take effect immediately, without prior Commission
approval, and that the Commission should take action to suspend a fee
change and institute a proceeding to determine whether the fee change
should be approved or disapproved only where the Commission has
concerns that the change may not be consistent with the Act.
    NASDAQ believes that this proposal is in keeping with those
principles by promoting increased transparency through the
dissemination of Nasdaq Basic. The dissemination is designed to
increase not only transparency for non-professional users, but also to
reduce burdensome administrative costs in addition to actual per user
costs. NASDAQ notes also that Nasdaq Basic data is already distributed
and that this filing proposes to distribute no additional data
elements. Nasdaq Basic is distributed and purchased on a voluntary
basis, in that neither NASDAQ nor market data distributors are required
by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly,
distributors and users can discontinue use at any time and for any
reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees
charged.

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

    NASDAQ 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. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was

competitive. NASDAQ believes that a record may readily be established
to demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data
products. Without the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to
a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would
accomplish little. Without trade executions, exchange data products
cannot exist. Data products are valuable to many end users only insofar
as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or
their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either
transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both
products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce'.'' NetCoalition at 24. However, the existence of fierce
competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity
on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one platform to
another in response to order execution price differentials would both
reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need
to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform
increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost
of doing business with the platform, and affected broker-dealers will
assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders
elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platform may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the availability of after-market alternatives to the
manufacturer-supplied system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including ten self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers'

production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of
proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their
business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters
that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer
proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Internet portals, such as Yahoo and Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail
broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers
proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient
commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these
vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse to
purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient
value. NASDAQ and other producers of proprietary data products must
understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing
disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson-Reuters.
    The court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the
depth-of-book data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
NASDAQ believes, however, that evidence not before the court clearly
demonstrates that availability of depth data attracts order flow. For
example, NASDAQ submits that in and of itself, NASDAQ's decision
voluntarily to cap fees on existing products, as is the effect of a
flat fee or an enterprise license, is evidence of market forces at
work.
    The court in NetCoalition did cite favorably an economic study by
Ordover and Bamberger which concluded that ``[a]lthough an exchange may
price its trade execution fees higher and its market data fees lower
(or vice versa), because of ``platform'' competition the exchange
nonetheless receives the same return from the two ``joint products'' in
the aggregate.'' \14\ Ordover and Bamberger also provided additional
comments expanding upon the impact of platform competition.\15\ Among
the conclusions that Ordover and Bamberger reach are: NASDAQ is subject
to significant competitive forces in setting the prices and other terms
of execution services and proprietary data products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NetCoalition at fn. 16.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63745 (Jan. 20,
2011); 76 FR 4970 (Jan. 27, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-010) (attached to
original filing as Exhibit 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competitive forces constrain the prices that platforms can charge
for non-core market information. A trading platform cannot generate
market information unless it receives trade orders. For this reason, a
platform can be expected to use its market data product as a tool for
attracting liquidity and trading to its exchange.
    While, by definition, information that is proprietary to an
exchange cannot be obtained elsewhere, this does not enable the owner
of such information to exercise monopoly power over that information
vis-[agrave]-vis firms with the need for such information. Even though
market information from one platform may not be a perfect substitute
for market information from one or more other platforms, the existence
of alternative sources of information can be expected to constrain the
prices platforms charge for market data.
    Besides the fact that similar information can be obtained
elsewhere, the feasibility of supra-competitive pricing is constrained
by the traders' ability to shift their trades elsewhere, which lowers
the activity on the exchange and so in the long run reduces the quality
of the information generated by the exchange.
    Competition among platforms has driven NASDAQ continually to
improve its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data
needs. For example, NASDAQ has developed and maintained multiple
delivery mechanisms (IP, multi-cast, and compression) that enable
customers to receive data in the form and manner they prefer and at the
lowest cost to them. NASDAQ offers front end applications such as its
``Bookviewer'' to help customers utilize data. NASDAQ has created new
products like TotalView Aggregate to complement TotalView ITCH and
Level 2, because offering data in multiple formatting allows NASDAQ to
better fit customer needs. NASDAQ offers data via multiple extranet
providers, thereby helping to reduce network and total cost for its
data products. NASDAQ has developed an online administrative system to
provide customers transparency into their data feed requests and
streamline data usage reporting. NASDAQ has also expanded its flat fee
or enterprise license options to reduce the administrative burden and
costs to firms that purchase market data.
    Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in message
traffic, NASDAQ's fees for depth-of-book data have remained flat. In
fact, as a percent of total customer costs, NASDAQ data fees have
fallen relative to other data usage costs--including bandwidth,
programming, and infrastructure--that have risen. The same holds true
for execution services; despite numerous enhancements to NASDAQ's
trading platform, absolute and relative trading costs have declined.
Platform competition has intensified as new entrants have emerged,
constraining prices for both executions and for data.
    The vigor of competition for non-core data information is
significant and the

Exchange believes that this proposal clearly evidences such
competition. NASDAQ is offering a new pricing model in order to keep
pace with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs. It is
entirely optional and is geared towards attracting new customers, as
well as retaining existing customers.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the course of the past year.
NASDAQ continues to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, firms make decisions on
how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total
cost of interacting with NASDAQ or other exchanges. Of course, the
explicit data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis.
Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and
others are vice versa. The market for this non-core data information is
highly competitive and continually evolves as products develop and
change.

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.\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-130 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-130. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2011-130 and should be submitted on or before November 7, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26673 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15784-15785]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9842-006]

Mr. Ray F. Ward; Notice of Scoping Meetings and Environmental
Site Review and Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Minor New License.
    b. Project No.: 9842-006.
    c. Date Filed: August 28, 2014.
    d. Applicant: Mr. Ray F. Ward.
    e. Name of Project: Ward Mill Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Watauga River, in the Township of Laurel Creek,
Watauga County, North Carolina. The project does not occupy lands of
the United States.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Andrew C. Givens, Cardinal Energy Service,
Inc., 620 N. West St., Suite 103, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603, (919)
834-0909.
    i. FERC Contact: Adam Peer,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for Filing Scoping Comments: May 21, 2015.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-9842-006.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The Ward Mill Project consists of the following facilities: (1)
A 130-foot-long, 20-foot-high rock and concrete dam; (2) an impoundment
with a surface area of 4.6 acres and an estimated gross storage
capacity of 16.3 acre-feet; (3) a 14-foot-long, 5-foot-wide, and 7.5-
foot-tall penstock made of rock, reinforced concrete and steel; (4) a
60-foot-long, 20-foot-wide powerhouse integrated into the south end of
the dam, containing two generating units with a total capacity of 168
kW; (5) a 45-foot-long, 12.48-kilovolt transmission line; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to generate from below
290,000 to over 599,000 kilowatt-hours annually. The dam and existing
facilities are owned by the applicant. No new project facilities are
proposed.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Scoping Process
    The Commission intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA)
on the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action.

Scoping Meetings

    FERC staff will conduct one agency scoping meeting and one public
meeting. The agency scoping meeting will focus on resource agency and
non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the public scoping
meeting is primarily for public input. All interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the
meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the
environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and
locations of these meetings are as follows:

Agency Scoping Meeting

    DATE: Tuesday, April 21, 2015.
    TIME: 1 p.m. (EDT).
    PLACE: Watauga County Center.
    ADDRESS: 971 W. King Street, Boone, NC 28607.

Public Scoping Meeting

    DATE: Tuesday, April 21, 2015.
    TIME: 7 p.m. (EDT).
    PLACE: Watauga County Center.
    ADDRESS: 971 W. King Street, Boone, NC 28607.
    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the
Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the
scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above).

Environmental Site Review

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project Environmental
Site Review. The time and location of this meeting is as follows:
    PROJECT: Ward Mill Hydroelectric Project.
    DATE: Tuesday, April 21, 2015.
    TIME: 3:30 p.m. (EDT).
    LOCATION: Watauga County Center Parking Lot, 971 W. King Street,
Boone, NC 28607.
    All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited
to attend. All participants should meet at the time and location
specified above. All participants are responsible for their own
transportation to the site. Anyone with questions about the
Environmental Site Review should contact Andrew C. Givens, Cardinal
Energy Service, Inc., 620 N. West St., Suite 103, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27603,<PHONE_NUMBER> on or before April 14, 2015.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2)
solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public on issues that should be
analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not
require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.
    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to
assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed
in the EA.

     Dated: March 18, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06742 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35667-35668]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC12-8-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-567); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 United States Code (U.S.C.) 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the
information collection FERC-567, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual
Reports of System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection
requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB
and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as
explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the Federal Register
(77 FR 11520, 02/27/2012) requesting public comments. FERC received no
comments on the FERC-567 and is making this notation in its submittal
to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by July 16,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0005, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12-8-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-567, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of
System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0005.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-567 information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission uses the information from the FERC-567 to
obtain accurate data on pipeline facilities and the peak capacity of
these facilities. Additionally, the Commission validates the need for
new facilities proposed by pipelines in certificate applications. By
modeling a applicant's pipeline system, Commission staff utilizes the
FERC-567 data to determine configuration and location of installed
pipeline facilities; verify and determine the receipt and delivery
points between shippers, producers and pipeline companies; determine
the location of receipt and delivery points and emergency
interconnections on a pipeline system; determine the location of
pipeline segments, laterals and compressor stations on a pipeline
system; verify pipeline segment lengths and pipeline diameters; justify
the maximum allowable operating pressures and suction and discharge
pressures at compressor stations; verify the installed horsepower and
volumes compressed at each compressor station; determine the existing
shippers and producers currently using each pipeline company; verify
peak capacity on the system; and develop and evaluate alternatives to
the proposed facilities as a means to mitigate environmental impact of
new pipeline construction.
    18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 260.8(a) requires each major
natural gas pipeline with a system delivery capacity

exceeding 100,000 Mcf per day to submit by June 1 of each year,
diagrams reflecting operating conditions on the pipeline's main
transmission system during the previous 12 months ended December 31.
These physical/engineering data are not included as part of any other
data collection requirement.
    Type of Respondents: Applicants proposing hydropower projects on
(or changes to existing projects located within) lands owned by the
United States.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission proposed an erroneous
burden estimate on the 60-day notice \2\ for this information
collection. The Commission estimates the corrected total Public
Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \2\ 77 FR 11520 (2/27/2012)

                      FERC-567 (IC12-8-000): Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                        Average burden
                                                                    Number of       responses per    Total number of      hours per      Estimated total
                                                                   respondents       respondent         responses         response        annual burden
                                                                             (A)               (B)   (A) x (B) = (C)               (D)         (C) x (D)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Data Proposed on 60-day notice 2 for FERC-567
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas Pipelines.........................................               103                 1               103                 1               103
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Corrected Data Proposed for FERC-567
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas Pipelines.........................................               103                 1               103                55             5,665
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission revised the erroneous figures (presented within the
60-day notice for this information collection \2\) based on an improved
internal analysis. We were remiss in our previous analysis that
resulted in the underestimated burden calculation.
    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $ [5,665
hours / 2,080 \3\ hours/year = 2.72355 * $143,540/year \4\ =
$390,938.37]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 2080 hours = 40 hours/week * 52 weeks (1 year).
    \4\ Average annual salary per employee in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated annual cost of filing the FERC-567 per response is
$3,795.52 [$390,938.37 / 103 responses = $3,795.52/response].
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14516 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 20353]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09590]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9993-19-OA]

Notification of a Public Meeting of the Chartered Science
Advisory Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the chartered
SAB. Among the topics being discussed will be the EPA's semi-annual
regulatory agenda and the agency's request for SAB advice regarding
upcoming actions related to an update to the ``2005 EPA Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment'' and creation of guidelines for non-cancer
risk assessment. In addition, the SAB will receive briefings from the
Office of Research and Development and the Office of Water. The full
meeting agenda will be posted on the SAB website (http://www.epa.gov/sab) before the meeting.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, from
9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Thursday June 6, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sphinx on K conference
facility, 1315 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning the meeting may contact Dr. Thomas
Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board
(1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning the
SAB can be found on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA),
codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and
technical advice to the Administrator on the scientific and technical
basis for agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal
Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of
FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant
to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB will hold a
public meeting to discuss and deliberate on topics that include the
agency's semiannual regulatory agenda and EPA's request for SAB advice
regarding upcoming actions related to an update to the ``2005 EPA
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment'' and creation of guidelines
for non-cancer risk assessment. As part of the EPA's effort to
routinely inform the SAB about proposed and planned agency actions that
have a scientific or technical basis, the agency provides notice to the
SAB when the Office of Management and Budget publishes the ``Unified
(Regulatory) Agenda.'' The SAB convened a Work Group to review
information provided in the agency's spring 2018 regulatory agenda
regarding EPA planned actions and their supporting science. The SAB
will discuss recommendations and information developed by the Work
Group regarding the adequacy of the science supporting the planned
actions. EPA is also asking for SAB advice regarding upcoming actions
related to an update to the ``2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment'' and creation of guidelines for non-cancer risk assessment.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: A meeting agenda and other
materials for the meeting will be placed on the SAB website at http://epa.gov/sab.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office.
    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific
advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of
the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the EPA's charge,
meeting materials, or the group providing advice. Input from the public
to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific
or technical information or analysis for the SAB to consider or if it
relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO
directly.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes.
Persons interested in providing oral statements at the June 5-6, 2019,
meeting should contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, DFO, in writing (preferably
via email) at the contact information noted above by May 29, 2019, to
be placed on the list of registered speakers. Written Statements:
Written statements for the June 5-6, 2019, meeting should be received
in the SAB Staff Office by May 29, 2019, so that the information can be
made available to the SAB for its consideration prior to the meeting.
Written statements should be supplied to the DFO at the contact
information above via email (preferred) or in hard copy with original
signature. Submitters are requested to provide a signed and unsigned
version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish
documents with signatures on its websites. Members of the public should
be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any
written comments, may be posted to the SAB website. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Armitage at the phone
number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior
to the meeting, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.

    Dated: April 25, 2019.
Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2019-09590 Filed 5-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:This document accompanies comments submitted separately to this docket on this date (11/15/2017) for CropLife America by Ray McAllister.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I, Marvin J. Hamilton ( owner and CEO of Tuff Puffs LLC) believe that a 75 day period for review of the proposed regulations is insufficient. I am requesting that the period for review be extended to 180 days. I also request that electronic cigarettes be excluded from the proposal on the basis that electronic cigarettes do not contain any plant material of the genus Nicotiana, and therefore are not a tobacco product.


Exhibit 4  -  Senior I/M Program Details
Mobile6-based I/M emissions were retained for this off-model exercise because they were considered to still be conservatively high.  In the future, GA EPD and ARC will evaluate the development of MOVES-based senior I/M credits.
Effect of Senior Exemption on 2002 Highway Mobile Source Emissions
During their 1996 session the Georgia General Assembly amended the Georgia Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Act (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9, et seq), to exempt from emission testing those otherwise subject vehicles ten years old or older driven fewer than 5,000 miles per year and owned by persons 65 years old or older.
The actual numbers of vehicles that received senior citizen exemptions from Georgia's inspection and maintenance (I/M) program waiver centers in 2002 are shown in the table below (source: Appendix I, Detailed List of Waivers Processed, from 2002 Annual Operations Report for Georgia's Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program, July 30, 2003):
                   Table 1  -  Vehicles with Waivers by Year
                                  Age (years)
                                   Vehicles
                                      10
                                     1,629
                                      11
                                     2,120
                                      12
                                     2,239
                                      13
                                     2,630
                                      14
                                     2,496
                                      15
                                     2,350
                                      16
                                     2,369
                                      17
                                     2,227
                                      18
                                     1,708
                                      19
                                     1,111
                                      20
                                      669
                                      21
                                      586
                                      22
                                      496
                                      23
                                      833
                                      24
                                      794
                                      25
                                      44

2002 NOx Credit Loss
MOBILE6.2 emission factors for calculating the 2002 NOx credit loss from these exempted vehicles were determined in the following manner. Six combined highway mobile source control strategies were modeled:

   :: enhanced I/M in all 13 Atlanta ozone nonattainment area counties;
   :: the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, including Tier 1 and Tier 2 tailpipe standards;
   :: Stage II vapor recovery;
   :: low-sulfur (150 parts per million, or ppm) and low Reid Vapor Pressure (7.0 pounds per square inch, or psi) gasoline;
   :: the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program; and
   :: technician training and certification).

The enhanced I/M program is a decentralized annual hybrid with onboard diagnostics (OBD-II) system checks on 1996 and newer model year vehicles; and two-mode ASM tests on 25-year-old through 1995 model year vehicles. Anti-tampering inspections (checking for catalyst removal) are performed on 25-year-old through 1995 model year vehicles, and gas cap pressure tests are performed on all vehicles subject to inspection.

   :: An overall 2002 highway mobile source NO inventory based on July 1, 2002, MOBILE6.2 emission factors with all controls in place (310,382,142 grams per day) was divided by the total summer-adjusted 2002 VMT (122,754,275 miles) with a resulting overall grams-per-mile NO emission factor of 2.528.
   :: MOBILE6.2 runs with all subject vehicles receiving their appropriate test were performed to determine the speed that would result in a July 1, 2002, NO emission factor of 2.528 grams per mile: 38.58 miles per hour.
   :: Two separate July 1, 2002, MOBILE6.2 runs, at 38.58 mph and with emissions calculated by model year, were made: one with hybrid I/M on 25-year-old and newer subject vehicles; the other with OBD-II system checks on 1996 and newer vehicles, with 1995 and older vehicles exempted.
   :: Next, both sets (covered and exempt) of emission factors were separately multiplied by the VMT fractions, normalized to total 1.000, for the appropriate vehicle types (LDGV, LDGT12, LDGT34), and the three products were then added together to produce a single passenger vehicle emission factor for each exempted vehicle age.
   :: The differences in the covered and exempt emission factors were then determined for each exempted vehicle age, these differences were multiplied by 4999, the maximum allowable yearly miles traveled by exempt vehicles, and that product was then multiplied by the number of vehicles of that age to determine grams per year.  Grams per year were converted to tons per day (907,180 grams per ton, 365 days per year) and the resulting NOx reduction credit loss for 2002 was determined to be 0.03 tons per day.

2002 VOC Credit Loss
MOBILE6.2 emission factors for calculating the 2002 VOC credit loss from these exempted vehicles were determined in the following manner:
   :: An overall 2002 highway mobile source VOC inventory based on July 1, 2002, MOBILE6.2 emission factors with all controls in place (158,026,372 grams per day) was divided by the total 2002 VMT (122,754,275 miles) with a resulting overall grams-per-mile VOC emission factor of 1.287.
   :: MOBILE6.2 runs with all subject vehicles receiving their appropriate test were performed to determine the speed that would result in a July 1, 2002, VOC emission factor of 1.287 grams per mile: 30.6 miles per hour.
   :: Two separate July 1, 2002, MOBILE6.2 runs, at 30.6 mph and with emissions calculated by model year, were made: one with hybrid I/M on 25-year-old and newer subject vehicles; the other with OBD-II system checks on 1996 and newer vehicles, with 1995 and older vehicles exempted.
   :: Next, both sets (covered and exempt) of emission factors were separately multiplied by the VMT fractions, normalized to total 1.000, for the appropriate vehicle types (LDGV, LDGT12, LDGT34), and the three products were then added together to produce a single passenger vehicle emission factor for each exempted vehicle age.
   :: The differences in the covered and exempt emission factors were then determined for each exempted vehicle age, these differences were multiplied by 4999, the maximum allowable yearly miles traveled by exempt vehicles, and that product was then multiplied by the number of vehicles of that age to determine grams per year. Grams per year were converted to tons per day (907,180 grams per ton, 365 days per year) and the resulting VOC reduction credit loss for 2002 was determined to be 0.05 tons per day.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22396-22397]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

April 21, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-618-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits capacity
release agreement containing negotiated rate provisions with Texla
Energy Management, Inc.
    Filed Date: 04/16/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100419-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-619-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Baseline Filing to be effective 4/19/2010.
    Filed Date: 04/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100419-5066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 3, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-620-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits a capacity
release agreement containing negotiated rate provisions.
    Filed Date: 04/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100420-0213.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 3, 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9793 Filed 4-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 14, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76405-76407]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27019]

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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 14, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1154; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00550-T;
Amendment 39-22250; AD 2022-24-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 &
702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes,
Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-
2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report
that the pressure switch gauge assembly for the cargo bay fire
extinguisher container has the potential to display an incorrect
pressure under certain environmental conditions. This AD requires
replacing affected high rate of discharge (HRD) and low rate of
discharge (LRD) pressure switch gauge assemblies for the cargo bay fire
extinguisher container. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 18, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 18,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1154; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact MHI RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center, 3655 Ave. des
Grandes-Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand, Qu[eacute]bec J7H 0E2 Canada;
North America toll-free telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or direct-dial telephone
450-990-7272; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email mhirj.com">[email protected]mhirj.com; website
mhirj.com.
     You may view this 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
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1154.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriel Kim, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes, Model
CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 12,
2022 (87 FR 55735). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-20, dated April
19, 2022, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority
for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that
the pressure switch gauge assembly for the cargo bay fire extinguisher
container has the potential to display an incorrect pressure under
certain environmental conditions. The supplier attributed the root
cause of the container pressure display error to the use of a room
temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone. Both the HRD and LRD cargo bay
fire extinguisher containers are affected. The airplane is intended to
be operated at temperatures as low as -53.8 [deg]C (-65 [deg]F).
However, testing has shown that at temperatures below-49.4 [deg]C (-57
[deg]F), the RTV silicone goes through a glass transition that causes
locking of the discharge indication microswitch in a closed state
(showing normal pressure) on 50 percent of the assemblies tested. After
returning to above -35.0 [deg]C (-31.5 [deg]F) for more than 6 minutes,
the pressure switch gauge assembly returns to normal operation. If the
flightcrew does not receive an indication of low pressure and there is
a fire in the cargo bay, reduced fire extinguisher container capacity
below the level required to appropriately suppress a cargo fire could
lead to an uncontrollable fire and loss of the airplane.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing affected HRD and
LRD pressure switch gauge assemblies for the cargo bay fire
extinguisher container.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1154.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association,
International, who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for

minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    MHI RJ Aviation ULC has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-26-013, dated
October 8, 2021. This service information describes procedures for
replacing the HRD and LRD pressure switch gauge assemblies for cargo
bay fire extinguisher containers part numbers (P/N) 473919-1, P/N
473920-1, and P/N 474901-1, manufactured prior to March 2020 as
indicated on the identification plate. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 564 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340...........................            $595             $935         $527,340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-24-10 MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-22250; Docket No. FAA-2022-1154;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00550-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 18, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C11
(Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes; certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
protection.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the pressure
switch gauge assembly for the cargo bay fire extinguisher container
has the potential to display an incorrect pressure under certain
environmental conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
instances where the fire extinguisher container capacity is reduced
below the level required to appropriately suppress a cargo fire, and
the flightcrew does not receive an indication of low pressure,
which, in the event of a fire in the cargo bay, could lead to an
uncontrollable fire and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 10 years after the effective date of this AD: Replace the
high rate of discharge and low rate of discharge pressure switch
gauge assemblies for any cargo bay fire extinguisher container
having part number (P/N) 473919-1, P/N 473920-1, and P/N 474901-1,
manufactured prior to March 2020 as indicated on the identification
plate, with a serviceable part number, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Aviation ULC Service Bulletin
670BA-26-013, dated October 8, 2021.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of 10 years after the effective date of this AD, or before
further flight after the replacement has been done in paragraph (g)
of this AD, whichever occurs first, no person may install, on any
airplane, a cargo bay fire extinguisher container having P/N 473919-
1, P/N 473920-1, or P/N 474901-1, manufactured prior to March 2020
as indicated on the identification plate, unless ``CW SB Fire
Extinguisher-26-1'' is identified on the identification plate.

(i) No Return of Part Requirement

    Although the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Aviation ULC
Service Bulletin 670BA-26-013, dated October 8, 2021, specify to
return the cargo fire extinguisher containers to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York 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 ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or MHI RJ Aviation ULC's Transport
Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO,
the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(k) Additional Information

    (1) For related information, refer to Transport Canada AD CF-
2022-20, dated April 19, 2022. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1154.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) MHI RJ Aviation ULC Service Bulletin 670BA-26-013, dated
October 8, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI
RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center, 3655 Ave. des Grandes-
Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand, Qu[eacute]bec J7H 0E2 Canada;
North America toll-free telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or direct-dial
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email mhirj.com">[email protected]mhirj.com;
website mhirj.com.
    (4) You may view this 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>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 15, 2022.
Ross Landes, Deputy
Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-27019 Filed 12-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49091-49092]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21196]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0632; FRL-9983-92]

Request for Nominations of Experts To Consider for ad hoc
Participation on Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA requests public nominations of scientific experts to
be considered for ad hoc participation on the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)
through membership on the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Science
Review Board (SRB). All nominees will be considered for ad hoc
participation providing independent scientific advice to the EPA on
health and safety issues related to pesticides. The FIFRA SAP is
comprised of biologists, statisticians, toxicologists and other experts
and is assisted in their reviews by members of the FQPA SRB.

DATES: Nominations. Nominations should be provided to the Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on
or before November 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Marquea D. King, DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those who are or may be required to conduct
testing of chemical substances and provide submissions to the EPA under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other
entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my nominations for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. If your nomination contains any information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise

protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting your
nomination.
    2. Request for nominations to be considered for ad hoc
participation on the FIFRA SAP. As part of a broader process for
developing a pool of experts known as the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) Science Review Board (SRB), Office of Science Coordination and
Policy (OSCP) staff solicits the public and stakeholder communities
nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc
participants on FIFRA SAP reviews. Any interested person or
organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as
prospective candidates. Individuals may self-nominate. Individuals
nominated should have expertise in one or more of the following areas:
Biochemistry; chemistry; epidemiology; human health risk assessment;
pathology; PBPK modeling; aquatic modeling; pharmacology; ecological
risk assessment; environmental exposure and fate; environmental
toxicology; occupational, consumer, and general exposure assessment;
toxicology; dose response modeling; environmental engineering;
statistics; water quality monitoring; hydrologist; GIS specialist;
computational toxicology; entomology; veterinary entomology; medical
entomology, insect ecology, allergenicity, research veterinarian;
inhalation toxicology; volatile organics; endocrinology, alternative
testing methods, high throughput testing approaches, adverse outcome
pathways, cross species extrapolation, and systematic review. Nominees
should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications,
including training and experience, and can provide expert comments on
the pesticide health and safety related issues for a FIFRA SAP meeting.
Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address,
email address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to
the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before
November 13, 2018. The Agency will consider all nominations of
prospective candidates for service as ad hoc participants on the FIFRA
SAP that are received on or before that date. However, final selection
of ad hoc participants is at the discretion of the Agency.
    The selection of scientists to serve as ad hoc participants of the
FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the Panel and the expertise
needed to address the Agency's charge to the Panel. No interested
scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership
on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or
their employment by a Federal department or agency, except EPA. Other
factors considered during the selection process include availability of
the prospective candidate to fully participate in the Panel's reviews,
absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of loss of
impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review,
and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the
appearance of loss of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may
result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not
assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Often,
numerous available and qualified candidates are identified for ad hoc
participation. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully
weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of
expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall
balance of different scientific perspectives on the Panel.
    FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part
2634--Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, Qualified Trusts, and
Certificates of Divestiture, as supplemented by EPA in 5 CFR part 6401.
In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service
on FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information
which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the
candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources
of research support. EPA will evaluate the candidates' financial
disclosure forms to assess whether there are financial conflicts of
interest, appearance of a loss of impartiality, or any prior
involvement with the development of the documents under consideration
(including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is
considered further for service on FIFRA SAP. Those who are selected
from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the
public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and
assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to
review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of ad hoc
participants and FIFRA SAP members participating at each meeting will
be posted on the FIFRA SAP website at http://www.epa.gov/sap or may be
obtained from the OPP Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

A. Purpose of FIFRA SAP

    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Scientific
Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) serves as a primary scientific peer review
mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-
related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the
environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in
1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix). FIFRA SAP is
composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are
appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the
National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. The
FIFRA SAP is assisted in their reviews by ad hoc participation from
members of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Science Review Board
(SRB). As a scientific peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides
comments, evaluations, and recommendations to improve the effectiveness
and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. The FIFRA SAP is not
required to reach consensus in its recommendations to the Agency but
consensus is a preferred outcome and possible under FACA.
    At this time, EPA is seeking nominations to augment the FQPA SRB, a
pool of experts who can be available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to
assist in peer reviews conducted by the Panel. EPA anticipates
selecting experts from this pool, as needed, to assist the SAP in their
peer review of EPA's issues related to the health and safety of
pesticides.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 et seq.

    Dated: September 19, 2018.
Stanley Barone Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-21196 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P