[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 124 (Friday, June 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38414-38418]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13770]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89115; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Equity 7, Section 114 and Equity 7, Section 118(a) of the Fee
Schedule

June 22, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 10, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Equity 7, Section 114(d) to add a Qualified Market Maker (``QMM'')
tier, and Section 118(a) to add several credits for displayed orders/
quotes that provide liquidity to the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the

principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Qualified Market Maker (``QMM'')
tiers pursuant to Equity 7, Section 114 and also to amend the schedule
of credits it provides to member organizations, pursuant to Equity 7,
Section 118(a), in two respects.
    The QMM tier rebate provides a tier rebate to QMMs with respect to
displayed orders (other than a Designated Retail Order \3\) in
securities priced at $1 or more per share that provide liquidity and
are for securities listed on NYSE (Tape A), Nasdaq (Tape C) or
securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE (Tape B).
Currently, the Exchange provides a $0.0001 per share executed credit
when a QMM executes shares of liquidity provided in all securities
through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent
above 0.70% up to, and including, 0.90% of Consolidated Volume \4\
during the month. The QMM may receive a $0.0002 per share executed
credit if the QMM executes shares of liquidity provided in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent above 0.90% of Consolidated Volume during the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Equity 7, Section 118, a ``Designated Retail
Order'' is an agency or riskless principal order that meets the
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 and that originates from a natural
person and is submitted to Nasdaq by a member that designates it
pursuant to this section, provided that no change is made to the
terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the
order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology.
    \4\ As used in Equity 7, Section 118(a), the term ``Consolidated
Volume'' means the total consolidated volume reported to all
consolidated transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and trade
reporting facilities during a month in equity securities, excluding
executed orders with a size of less than one round lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to provide a $0.00025 per share executed
credit to a QMM that (i) executes shares of liquidity provided in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent above 1.25% of Consolidated Volume during the month; (ii)
quotes at the NBBO \5\ at least 25% of the time during the month during
regular market hours in an average of at least 2,700 symbols per day;
(iii) quotes at the NBBO at least 25% of the time during the month
during regular market hours in an average of at least 1,200 symbols in
securities in Tape A per day; and (iv) executes shares of liquidity
provided in securities in Tape A through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs that represent an increase of at least 0.50% of
Consolidated Volume relative to May 2020. The Exchange notes that this
new QMM rebate is not cumulative. That is, a QMM may only qualify for
one of the three tiers in any given month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A member is considered to be quoting at the NBBO if one of
its MPIDs has a displayed order (other than a Designated Retail
Order) at either the national best bid or the national best offer or
both the national best bid and offer. On a daily basis, Nasdaq will
determine the number of securities in which each of a member's MPIDs
satisfied the 25% NBBO requirement. Nasdaq will aggregate all of a
member's MPIDs to determine the number of securities for purposes of
the 25% NBBO requirement. To qualify the QMM must meet the
requirement for an average of the symbols specified per day over the
course of the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to include the proposed Tier 3 in the
$0.0029 per share executed fee charged to a QMM for orders in
securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq priced at $1 or more
per share that access liquidity on the Nasdaq Market Center if the QMM
has a combined Consolidated Volume (adding and removing liquidity) of
at least 3.7% and MOC/LOC volume greater than 0.25% of Consolidated
Volume.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend in two respects, its
schedule of credits, as set forth in Equity 7, Section 118, which it
provides to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide
liquidity. First, for orders in securities in each of Tapes A, B, and
C, the Exchange proposes to provide a $0.00305 per share executed
credit to a member with shares of liquidity provided in all securities
through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent
more than 1.20% of Consolidated Volume during the month, and (ii) with
at least 0.25% of Consolidated Volume during the month that sets the
NBBO. Second, for adding liquidity in securities in Tape A, the
Exchange proposes to provide a new $0.00005 per share executed
supplemental credit to a member that, through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs: (i) Adds liquidity in securities in Tape A that
represents at least 0.75% of Consolidated Volume during the month; and
(ii) adds liquidity in securities in Tape B of at least 0.60% of
Consolidated Volume during the month.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference

for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the
proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase
its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
    In particular, the Exchange proposes to add an additional QMM tier
rebate that would provide a $0.00025 per share credit with the goal of
increasing the overall incentive to QMMs to further increase their
liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, and more specifically, in
securities in Tape A. The proposal will also provide an incentive for
QMMs to add liquidity at the NBBO in more securities, which is intended
to improve market quality. To the extent that this proposed change
leads to an increase in overall liquidity activity on the Exchange and
more competitive pricing, this will improve the quality of the
Exchange's market and increase its attractiveness to existing and
prospective participants. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add
QMMs that meet the criteria for Tier 3 to the $0.0029 per share
executed fee charged for orders in securities listed on exchanges other
than Nasdaq priced at $1 or more per share that access liquidity on the
Nasdaq Market Center. It is reasonable to assess the fee to QMMs that
meet the Tier 3 requirements because QMMs that meet the Tier 2
requirements are already charged the fee, and any QMM that satisfies
the Tier 3 requirement has also met the Tier 2 requirement.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to provide a
$0.00305 per share executed credit to a member that adds liquidity in
each of Tapes A, B, and C, and to provide a $0.00005 per share executed
supplemental credit to a member that adds liquidity in Tape A. The
proposed changes are intended to incentivize members to increase
liquidity and set the NBBO, which will further improve overall market
quality.
    The Exchange notes that those participants that are dissatisfied
with the proposed credits are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal will allocate the proposed
credits fairly among market participants. The proposed amendments to
Equity 7, Section 114 will give a QMM the opportunity to receive a
higher credit for adding a higher volume of liquidity and quoting at
the NBBO in more securities. Additionally, it is reasonable to charge
the same fee to QMMs that meet the Tier 2 and Tier 3 requirements
because all QMMs that meet the Tier 3 requirements also meet the Tier 2
requirements and Tier 2 is currently assessed the fee.
    The proposed amendments in Equity 7, Section 118 will allow members
to qualify for a credit by adding liquidity and setting the NBBO.
Additionally, it will provide a supplemental credit to members for
adding liquidity in securities in Tape A. It is equitable for the
Exchange to add additional incentives for members to receive a credit
when their orders add liquidity to the Exchange as a means of
incentivizing increased liquidity adding activity. An increase in
overall liquidity on the Exchange will improve the quality of the
Exchange's market and increase its attractiveness to existing and
prospective participants. Furthermore, it is equitable for the Exchange
to propose credit for participants with orders in securities in Tapes A
due to the Exchange's goal to specifically promote increased liquidity
in securities in Tape A. An increase in overall liquidity adding
activity on the Exchange will improve the quality of the Nasdaq market
and increase its attractiveness to existing and prospective
participants. Similarly, incentivizing members to add liquidity at the
NBBO in securities in Tape A under Tier 3 of the QMM program will
increase the overall liquidity and robustness of the Exchange's order
book and increase its attractiveness to existing and prospective
participants.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed new credits
is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more
favorable pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Proposal Is not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange intends for the proposal to improve market quality for
all members on the Exchange and by extension attract more liquidity to
the market, thereby improving market wide quality and price discovery.
Although a member's orders in securities in Tape A will benefit most
from the proposed supplemental credit, this result is fair insofar as
an uptick in liquidity adding activity will help to improve market
quality and the attractiveness of the Exchange's equity market to all
existing and prospective participants. Additionally, pricing by tape is
not uncommon as competing exchanges offer similar pricing
structures.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See New York Stock Exchange Price List 2020, available at
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf; NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges, available
at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf; CBOE BZX U.S. Equities Fee Schedule,
available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/; CBOE EDGX U.S. Equities Fee Schedule, available
at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that any participant that does not find
the amended credits to be sufficiently attractive is free to shift its
order flow to a competing venue.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that its proposals will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. The
Exchange's proposal to modify its QMM program will not burden
intramarket competition because the QMM program, as modified, will
continue to provide all members with an opportunity to obtain credits
for transactions if they improve the market by providing a minimum
percentage of volume per month and quoting a certain volume at the
NBBO, which the Exchange believes will improve market quality.
Additionally, the proposed credits for providing liquidity and setting
the NBBO will not place any burden on intramarket competition because
all members will have the opportunity to obtain the additional proposed
credits if the member increases liquidity and sets the NBBO, which will
further improve overall market quality. Similarly, the proposed
supplemental credit will not place any burden on intramarket
competition because all members will have the opportunity to obtain the
proposed supplemental credit, which will improve overall market
quality. Moreover, including QMMs that qualify for Tier 3 in the
$0.0029 per share executed fee charged to a QMM for orders in
securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq priced at $1 or more
per share that access liquidity on the Nasdaq Market Center will not
place any burden on intramarket competition because members are free to
trade on other venues to the extent they believe that fees imposed are
not attractive.
    Furthermore, all members of the Exchange will benefit from an
increase in the addition of liquidity by those that choose to meet the
criteria for each of the proposed credits. Members may grow their
businesses so that they have the capacity to receive credits for
providing liquidity. Moreover, members are free to trade on other
venues to the extent they believe that the credits provided are not
attractive. As one can observe by looking at any market share chart,
price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and
market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and
credit changes. The Exchange notes that the tier structure is
consistent with broker-dealer fee practices as well as the other
industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    Addressing whether the proposed credits could impose a burden on
competition on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate, the
Exchange believes that its proposed modifications to its schedule of
credits will not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's
execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive
competition both from the other 12 live exchanges and from off-exchange
venues, which include 34 alternative trading systems that trade
national market system stock. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its credits to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own credits in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which credit
changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.
    The proposed credits for adding liquidity are reflective of this
competition because even as one of the largest U.S. equities exchanges
by volume, the Exchange has less than 20% market share, which in most
markets could hardly be categorized as having enough market power to
burden competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in
addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues
which comprised more than 42% of industry volume for the month of May
2020.
    The Exchange intends for the proposed changes, which add qualifying
credits for its QMMs and other members, to increase member incentives
to engage in the addition of liquidity on the Exchange. These changes
are pro-competitive in that the Exchange intends for them to increase
liquidity on the Exchange and thereby render the Exchange a more
attractive and vibrant venue to market participants.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-030 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-030. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2020-030 and should be submitted on or before July 17, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13770 Filed 6-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 44766]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL14-84-000; et al.]

 Allco Renewable Energy Limited; Notice of Petition for
Enforcement

QF11-193-001
QF11-194-001
QF11-195-001
QF11-196-001
QF11-197-001
QF11-198-001
QF11-199-001
QF11-200-001
QF11-201-001
QF11-202-001
QF11-203-001

    Take notice that on July 28, 2014, pursuant to section 210(h)(2)(b)
of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16
U.S.C. 824a-3(h), Allco Renewable Energy Limited (Allco), hereby
petitions the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to
initiate an enforcement action against the Massachusetts Department of
Public Utilities (DPU) to remedy the DPU's improper implementation of
PURPA by creating a rule with respect to rates under PURPA section
210(f)(1) that eliminates a qualifying facility's ability to seek an
avoided cost long-run rate pursuant to 18 CFR 292.304)(d)(2)(ii).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 18, 2014.

    Dated: July 28, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18189 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3566-3568]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01196]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1201; Product Identifier 2017-SW-068-AD; Amendment
39-19155; AD 2018-02-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D,
AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2
helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the main rotor (M/R) mast jet
oil lubrication hose (oil hose). This AD is prompted by a report of a
blocked oil hose. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an
unsafe condition on these helicopters.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 12, 2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1201; 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 AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued AD No. 2017-0089, dated May 17, 2017 (AD
2017-0089), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model
AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E,
AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2
helicopters. EASA advises that an oil hose part number (P/N) 704A34-
412-015 (manufacturing P/N 4T13) was found blocked during unscheduled
maintenance. EASA states an investigation showed the hose had become
completely blocked with solder during the manufacturing process,
resulting in a complete absence of lubrication from the direct oil jet
to the M/R mast upper bearing. According to EASA this condition could
lead to degradation of the M/R mast bearings, loss of transmission
function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. To correct
this condition, EASA AD 2017-0089 requires a one-time inspection of the
oil hose to determine if there is any blockage, replacing the oil hose
and the M/R mast if the oil hose is blocked, and marking unobstructed
hoses with an ``x'' after the P/N.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs.

Related Service Information

    Airbus Helicopters has co-published as one document Emergency Alert
Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 62.00.20 for non-FAA type-certificated
AS550-series helicopters, EASB No. 62.00.23 for non-FAA type-
certificated AS555-series helicopters, EASB No. 62.00.36 for AS355-
series helicopters, EASB No. 62.00.39 for AS350-series helicopters, and
EASB No. 62A015 for EC130 series helicopters, all Revision 1 and dated
May 19, 2017. This service information specifies procedures for
inspecting the oil hose for the presence of oil, inspecting the oil
hose for blockage, and marking the hose if there is no blockage.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS):
     Removing the upper end of the oil hose and inspecting the
inside of the hose to determine if there is any oil present. If there
is no oil present, before further flight, replacing the M/R mast and
the oil hose;
     If there is oil present, within 30 hours TIS of inspecting
for the presence of oil, removing the hose and determining if there is
blockage in the hose, first using an air gun and then using cable ties
or a piece of wire. If there is blockage in the hose, before further
flight, replacing the M/R mast and the oil hose; and
     If there is oil present and there is no blockage, before
further flight, permanently marking the hose with an ``X'' following
the P/N.
    This AD also prohibits installing an oil hose, P/N 704A34-412-015,
on any helicopter unless it has been inspected as required by this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350BB
helicopters, this AD does not as that model is not type certificated in
the U.S.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,246 helicopters of U.S.
Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour,
inspecting the oil hose for oil and obstruction and marking the hose
will require about one hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a
cost of $105,910 for the U.S. fleet.
    If required, replacing the M/R mast and oil hose will require 16
hours and required parts will cost $29,940 for a cost per helicopter of
$31,300.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule
because some of the required corrective actions must be accomplished
within 30 hours TIS, a potentially short

period of time for helicopters primarily used for air ambulance
operations.
    Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated
above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2018-02-02 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-19155; Docket No. FAA-
2017-1201; Product Identifier 2017-SW-068-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA,
AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters, certificated in
any category, with a main rotor (M/R) mast jet oil lubrication hose
(oil hose) part number (P/N) 704A34-412-015 (manufacturing P/N
4T13), except those marked with an X following the P/N, installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a blocked oil hose. This
condition could result in failure of the direct oil jet to lubricate
the M/R mast upper bearing, degradation of the M/R mast bearings,
loss of M/R transmission function, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 12, 2018.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS), disconnect the upper
end of the oil hose and inspect the inside of the hose for oil.
    (i) If there is no oil inside the hose, before further flight,
replace the M/R mast and oil hose.
    (ii) If there is oil inside the hose, within 30 hours TIS,
remove the oil hose and blow air through the oil hose using an air
gun.
    (A) If no air flows through the oil hose, before further flight,
replace the M/R mast and oil hose.
    (B) If air does flow through the oil hose, inspect the oil hose
for any blockage by inserting two cable ties or a semi-rigid piece
of wire with a diameter of 2 to 2.3 millimeters (mm) a minimum of
100 mm into each end of the oil hose.
    (1) If there is any blockage, before further flight, replace the
M/R mast and oil hose.
    (2) If there is no blockage, re-identify the oil hose by vibro-
etching the letter ``X'' after the P/N.
    (2) Do not install an oil hose P/N 704A34-412-015 on any
helicopter unless it has been inspected as required by this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy
Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No.
62.00.20, No. 62.00.23, No. 62.00.36, No. 62.00.39, and No. 62A015,
all Revision 1 and dated May 19, 2017, which are co-published as one
document and not incorporated by reference, contain additional
information about the subject of this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum
Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or (800)
232-0323; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html.
You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0089, dated May 17, 2017. You may
view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-1201.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230 Main Gearbox
Mast.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 8, 2018.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-01196 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27341]
[DOCID:fr14my10-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP10-465-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company; Notice of Technical Conference

May 6, 2010.
    The Commission's March 31, 2010, Order in the above-captioned
proceeding directed that a technical conference be held to address
operation and technical issues raised by Gulf South Pipeline Company's
(Gulf South) pooling proposal and to further discuss concerns related
to Gulf South's justifications for its proposed pooling
modification.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Gulf South Pipeline Company, 130 FERC ] 61,272 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that Commission Staff will convene a technical
conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Thursday, May 27, 2010
at 1 p.m. (EST), in a room to be designated at the offices of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact Robert Mclean at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
Robert<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11528 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29585-29586]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-P-0163]

Determination That SANDOSTATIN (Octreotide Acetate) Injection,
Equal to 0.2 Milligrams Base/Milliliter and Equal to 1 Milligrams Base/
Milliliter, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or
Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) has
determined that SANDOSTATIN (octreotide acetate) injection, equal to
(EQ) 0.2 milligrams (mg) base/milliliter (mL) and 1 mg base/mL, was not
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This
determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw
approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to
this drug product, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs
that refer to the product as long as they meet relevant legal and
regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that

the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active
ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,''
which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA
applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing
otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    SANDOSTATIN (octreotide acetate) injection, EQ 0.2 mg base/mL and
EQ 1 mg base/mL, is the subject of NDA 19667, held by Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corporation. NDA 19667 was initially approved on
October 21, 1988, and the EQ 0.2 mg base/mL and EQ 1 mg base/mL
strengths were approved on June 12, 1991. SANDOSTATIN is indicated to
reduce blood levels of growth hormone and IGF-I (somatomedin C) in
acromegaly patients who have had inadequate response to or cannot be
treated with surgical resection, pituitary irradiation, and
bromocriptine mesylate at maximally tolerated doses. SANDOSTATIN is
also indicated for the symptomatic treatment of patients with
metastatic carcinoid tumors where it suppresses or inhibits the severe
diarrhea and flushing episodes associated with the disease. SANDOSTATIN
is also indicated for the treatment of profuse watery diarrhea
associated with vasoactive intestinal peptide-secreting tumors.
    In a letter received by the Agency on May 11, 2020, Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corporation notified FDA that SANDOSTATIN (octreotide
acetate) injection, EQ 0.2 mg base/mL and EQ 1 mg base/mL, was being
discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the ``Discontinued Drug
Product List'' section of the Orange Book. Caplin Steriles Limited
submitted a citizen petition dated February 5, 2021 (Docket No. FDA-
2021-P-0163), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine
whether SANDOSTATIN (octreotide acetate) injection, EQ 0.2 mg base/mL
and EQ 1 mg base/mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that SANDOSTATIN (octreotide acetate) injection, EQ
0.2 mg base/mL and EQ 1 mg base/mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of
safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other
information suggesting that SANDOSTATIN (octreotide acetate) injection,
EQ 0.2 mg base/mL and EQ 1 mg base/mL, was withdrawn for reasons of
safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for
records concerning the withdrawal of SANDOSTATIN (octreotide acetate)
injection, EQ 0.2 mg base/mL and EQ 1 mg base/mL, from sale. We have
also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible
postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would
indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list SANDOSTATIN
(octreotide acetate) injection, EQ 0.2 mg base/mL and EQ 1 mg base/mL,
in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book.
The ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' delineates, among other items,
drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons
other than safety or effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to
withdraw approval of approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product.
Additional ANDAs for this drug product may also be approved by the
Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements
for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this
drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency
will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: May 26, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11575 Filed 6-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


List of Products Containing Triflumizole Pesticide Products Registered
Under Section 3 of FIFRA   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Registration #	Registration Name	Company Name	Current Status	% of Active
Ingredient

400-431	Procure 50WS	Chemtura USA Corporation	    HYPERLINK
"javascript:viewStatus(2504,0,13)"  Active - Conditionally Registered
(05-Oct-1994) 	50 ADVANCE \d 4

400-433	Terraguard 50W	Chemtura USA Corporation	    HYPERLINK
"javascript:viewStatus(32553,0,13)"  Active - Conditionally Registered
(24-Oct-1991) 	50 ADVANCE \d 4

400-436	A815 Technical	Chemtura USA Corporation	    HYPERLINK
"javascript:viewStatus(19323,0,13)"  Active - Conditionally Registered
(24-Oct-1991) 	97 ADVANCE \d 4

400-489	PROCURE 50 WDG	Chemtura USA Corporation	    HYPERLINK
"javascript:viewStatus(37758,0,13)"  Active - Conditionally Registered
(04-Dec-2001) 	50 ADVANCE \d 4

400-502	Terraguard	Chemtura USA Corporation	    HYPERLINK
"javascript:viewStatus(396527,0,13)"  Active - Conditionally Registered
(20-Feb-2004) 	50 ADVANCE \d 4

400-518	Procure 480SC	Chemtura USA Corporation	    HYPERLINK
"javascript:viewStatus(466354,0,13)"  Active - Conditionally Registered
(01-Feb-2005) 	42.14 ADVANCE \d 4

400-521	Terraguard SC	Chemtura USA Corporation	    HYPERLINK
"javascript:viewStatus(473498,0,13)"  Active - Conditionally Registered
(02-Aug-2005) 	48 ADVANCE \d 4

400-535	Terraguard SC/LS	Chemtura USA Corporation	    HYPERLINK
"javascript:viewStatus(481900,0,13)"  Active - Conditionally Registered
(24-Aug-2006) 	42.14 ADVANCE \d 4

 ADVANCE \d 4