[Federal Register: February 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 8713-8715]
[DOCID:fr14fe08-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2008-0006]

Subpart A (``General Provisions'') and Subpart B (``Confined and
Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard
Employment'') (29 CFR part 1915); Extension of the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
its subparts entitled Subpart A (``General Provisions'') and Subpart B
(``Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in
Shipyard Employment'') (29 CFR part 1915).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2008-
0006, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2008-0006). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments see
the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ``Supplementary Information.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    One provision in subpart A contains paperwork requirements (Sec.
1915.7). Section 1915.7(b)(2) specifies that shipyard employers must
maintain a roster of designated competent persons (for inspecting and
testing spaces covered by subpart B), or a statement that a Marine
Chemist will perform these inspections and tests. Section 1915.7(d)
requires that employers: ensure that competent persons, Marine
Chemists, and certified industrial hygienists (CIHs) make a record of
each inspection and test they conduct, post the record near the covered
space while work is in progress, and file the record for a specified
period. In addition, employers must make the roster or statement and
the inspection and test records available to designated parties on
request.
    Subpart B consists of several standards governing entry into
confined and enclosed spaces and other dangerous atmospheres in
shipyard employment. These standards require that employers:
     Ensure that competent persons conduct inspections and
atmospheric testing prior to employees entering a confined or enclosed
space (Sec. Sec.  1915.12(a)-(c));
     Warn employees not to enter hazardous spaces and other
dangerous atmospheres (Sec.  1915.12(a)-(c), 1915.16);
     Train employees who will be entering confined or enclosed
spaces and certify that such training has been provided (Sec.
1915.12(d));
     Establish and train shipyard rescue teams or arrange for
outside rescue teams and provide them with information (Sec.
1915.12(e));
     Ensure that one person on each rescue team has a valid
first-aid training certificate (Sec.  1915.12(e));
     Exchange information regarding hazards, safety rules, and
emergency procedures concerning these spaces and atmospheres with other
employers whose employees may enter these spaces and atmospheres (Sec.
1915.12(f));
     Ensure testing of certain spaces before cleaning and other
cold work is started and as necessary thereafter while the operations
are ongoing (Sec.  1915.13(b)(2) and (4));
     Post signs prohibiting ignition sources within or near a
space that contains bulk quantities of flammable or combustible liquids
or gases (Sec.  1915.13(b)(10));
     Ensure that confined and enclosed spaces are tested before
employees perform hot work in these spaces (Sec.  1915.14(a));
     Post warnings of testing conducted by competent persons
and certificates of testing conducted by a Marine Chemist or Coast
Guard authorized person in the immediate vicinity of the hot work
operation while the operation is in progress (Sec.  1915.14(a) and
(b)); and
     Retain certificates of testing on file for at least three
months after completing the operation (Sec.  1915.14(a)(2)).

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and

     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The Agency is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the
information collection requirements contained in Subpart A (``General
Provisions'') and Subpart B (``Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other
Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment'') (29 CFR part 1915). The
Agency is proposing to decrease the existing burden hour estimate for
the collection of information requirements specified by subparts A and
B. In this regard, the Agency is proposing to decrease the current
burden hour estimate from 348,394 hours to 312,774 hours, a total
decrease of 35,620 hours. The decrease is the result of updated data
indicating a decline in the number of establishments from 717 to 639.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Subpart A (``General Provisions'') and Subpart B (``Confined
and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard
Employment'') (29 CFR part 1915).
    OMB Number: 1218-0011.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 639.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 1 minute (.02 hour) for a
secretary to maintain a training certification record to 10 minutes
(.17 hour) for a supervisory shipyard production worker to update,
maintain and post either the required roster or statement at each
shipyard.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 312,774.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0006). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR
31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 8, 2008.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E8-2672 Filed 2-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: November 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 65094]
[DOCID:fr07no06-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL05-146-002]

Independent Energy Producers Association v. California
Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 30, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 20, 2006, California Independent System
Operator Corporation filed a compliance filing pursuant to the
Commission's September 27, 2006 Order on Clarification.
    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 service 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 14 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 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 13, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-18677 Filed 11-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62775-62777]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24548]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70590; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-092]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to CBSX Appendix A

October 1, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 23, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II 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 Appendix A in the CBOE Stock
Exchange, LLC's (``CBSX'') Rules. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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
    By way of background, CBSX (CBOE's facility for trading non-option
securities) rules are generally contained within Chapters 50 through 54
of the CBOE rulebook. Trading of non-option securities on CBSX is also
subject to the rules in Chapters 1 through 29 to the same extent such
rules apply to the trading of the products to which those rules apply,
in some cases supplemented by the rules in Chapters 50 through 54,
except for rules that have been replaced by rules in Chapters 50
through 54 and except where the context otherwise requires. Appendix A
to Chapters 50 through 54 lists the rules in Chapters 1 through 29 that
are applicable to trading on CBSX. Where appropriate, Appendix A also
indicates that a rule in Chapter 1 through 29 has been supplemented by
a rule in Chapter 50 through 54.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Introduction to CBSX Rules, Chapters 50 through 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In that regard, Appendix A of the CBSX rules currently references
CBOE Rule 3.9, as supplemented by CBSX Rule 50.4. CBOE Rule 3.9(g)
currently states, in relevant part, that any person applying pursuant
to paragraph (a) of the rule to ``have an authorized trading function
is required to have completed the Exchange's Trading Permit Holder
Orientation Program and to have passed an Exchange Trading Permit
Holder Qualification Exam.'' Because Appendix A of the CBSX rules
contains a cross-reference to CBOE Rule 3.9 (as supplemented by CBSX
Rule 50.4) \4\, Rule 3.9 is applicable to CBSX Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') applicants as well. The CBOE Registration Services Department
historically, however, has not required this orientation or examination
for CBSX TPH applicants that will not be engaging in options trading as
both the orientation program and the examination referenced in
paragraph (g) of Rule 3.9 are focused upon options trading on CBOE (not
non-option securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CBSX Rule 50.4 relates to Trading Access to the CBSX System,
and, thus, does not supplement the requirements specifically related
to CBOE Rule 3.9(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, the Exchange is proposing to add text to the CBSX Appendix
A to make clear that CBOE Rule 3.9(g) is not applicable to CBSX TPH
applicants that will not engage in options trading on the Exchange.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add text to CBSX Appendix A
to explicitly state the applicable subparagraphs of 3.9(g) that are
applicable to CBSX TPH applicants. The Exchange believes this proposal
is appropriate as the orientation program and examination referenced in
CBOE 3.9(g) is focused on options trading. Thus, the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to continue to administer the orientation and
examination to CBOE TPH applicants but not to CBSX TPH applicants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule filing
will more specifically state the requirements for CBSX applicants along
with codify existing Exchange practices. The Exchange believes the
proposed change is consistent with the Act in that it continues to
require the options focused TPH Qualification Examination and
associated orientation program for CBOE applicants applying to engage
in options trading but not for CBSX applicants applying to the Exchange
to engage in trading of non-option securities. In addition, the
proposed filing is not unfairly discriminating because it will be
applied to all similarly situated TPH applicants who are solely trading
on CBSX.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule filing will place any burden on
intramarket competition because it will be applied equally to similarly
situated applicants that are applying to only engage in non-options
trading on CBSX. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule filing
will place any burden on intermarket competition because it is merely
codifying a current Exchange practice.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay because the rule change would codify an existing
Exchange practice and reduce confusion for associated persons of TPHs
and regulators. The Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing because it will align CBSX's rules with its existing practice of
not requiring CBSX TPH applicants to complete either the TPH
orientation program or the TPH exam.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of this 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 will institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change 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-CBOE-2013-092 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-CBOE-2013-092. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2013-092 and should be
submitted on or before November 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24548 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63285-63287]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1093; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-020-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Brantly International, Inc. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
Brantly International, Inc. (Brantly) Model B-2, Model B-2A, and Model
B-2B helicopters with a certain main rotor blade. This proposed AD was
prompted by multiple reports of main rotor (M/R) blade cracks and an
accident in which a crack that originated near the M/R blade trailing
edge resulted in the loss of a large section of the M/R blade. The
proposed actions are intended to prevent loss of the M/R blade and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 17,
2012.

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 or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (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 proposed AD, contact
Brantly International, Inc., 621 South Royal Lane, Suite 100, Coppell,
Texas 75019, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review a copy of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Belhumeur, Senior Project
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    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 might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, 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 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 proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for all Brantly B-2, B-2A, and B-2B
helicopters with an M/R blade, part number (P/N) 248-101, 248-202, or
248-404. This proposed AD is prompted by a 2007 accident in New Zealand
in which a large inboard section of the M/R blade of a Brantly B-2B
helicopter separated from the helicopter during flight. Laboratory
analysis concluded that the M/R blade failure was caused by hydrocarbon
contaminants inside the blade's skin-to-foam bond and that the fracture
originated near the blade's trailing edge. There were three other
reports of portions of M/R blades separating during flight and another
five reports of M/R blades having cracks or other defects that were
found during inspections.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Brantly International Inc. Service Bulletin No. 111,
dated February 10, 2011 (SB 111). The bulletin describes procedures for
inspecting the M/R blades every 300 hours time-in-service (TIS) using
Eddy Current Procedure ET002, performing a visual inspection using a
10X power magnifying glass and conducting a tap

test every 25 hours TIS and a visual inspection of the M/R blades
before the first flight of the day.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, before the first flight of each
day, for any helicopter with M/R blade, P/N 248-101, 248-202, or 248-
404, visually inspecting the M/R blade for a crack, nick, wrinkle, or
bend. Within 8 hours TIS, this proposed AD would require for any
helicopter with an M/R blade P/N 248-404 with 10 or more years in
service or 1,000 or more hours TIS, whichever occurs first, or for any
helicopter with M/R blade, P/N 248-101 or P/N 248-202:
     Having an inspector qualified to the American Society for
Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) Level II or equivalent, perform an eddy
current inspection for a crack or a nick and repeating this inspection
at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS or five calendar years,
whichever occurs first.
     Tap inspecting for delamination focusing more attention on
the inboard first 12 inches of the top and bottom of the M/R blade and
repeating this action at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS.
     Visually inspecting with a 10X or higher power magnifying
glass for a crack, nick, crease, wrinkle, bend, added hole (such as a
drilled hole to stop the spread of a crack), extra rivet, or inadequate
rivet spacing and repeating this inspection at intervals not to exceed
25 hours TIS.
     Before further flight, removing from service any M/R blade
that has a crack, nick, crease, wrinkle, bend, extra hole, extra rivet
or inadequate rivet spacing or any delamination.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    SB 111 requires accomplishment of sections 1 and 2 before further
flight. The proposed AD requires it to be completed within 8 hours TIS.
SB 111 allows up to 10 square inches of delamination outside of the
inboard 12 inches of the M/R blade. The proposed AD does not.

 Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 76 helicopters of
U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this
proposed AD, using an average of $85 per work-hour:
     For the visual inspection before the first flight of each
day, we estimate that it would require about one work-hour for a labor
cost of $85 per inspection cycle. No parts would be needed, so the
total cost for the U.S. fleet would be $6,460.
     For the eddy current inspection, we estimate that it would
require about four work-hours for a labor cost of $340 per inspection
cycle. No parts would be needed, so the total cost for the 76-
helicopter U.S. fleet would be $25,840 per inspection cycle.
     For the visual inspection with the magnifying glass and
the tap inspection, we estimate that it would require about three work-
hours for a labor cost of $255 per inspection cycle. No parts would be
needed, so the total cost for the U.S. fleet would be $19,380 per
inspection cycle.
     Replacing an M/R blade, if needed, would require about two
work-hours for a labor cost of $170. An M/R blade would cost $7,500 for
a total cost of $7,670 per helicopter, assuming one M/R blade is
replaced.

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

Brantly International, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2012-1093; Directorate
Identifier 2011-SW-020-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Model B-2, Model B-2A, and Model B-2B
helicopters, with a main rotor (M/R) blade, part number (P/N) 248-
101, 248-202, or 248-404, installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack, nick, crease,
wrinkle, bend, extra hole, extra rivet, inadequate rivet spacing, or
any delamination in an M/R blade. Any of these conditions could
result in loss of an M/R blade and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) 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.

(d) Required Actions

    (1) Before the first flight of each day, visually inspect each
M/R blade for a crack, nick, wrinkle, or bend. Pay particular
attention to the M/R blade root area, the area around the lead/lag
damper mounting fork, and the trailing edge.
    (2) Within 8 hours time-in-service (TIS), for a helicopter with
an M/R blade, P/N 248-101 or P/N 248-202, and for a helicopter with
an M/R blade P/N 248-404 with 10 or more years or 1,000 or more
hours TIS, whichever occurs first, remove each M/R blade and:
    (i) Using an inspector qualified to the American Society for
Nondestructive Testing

(ASNT) Level II or equivalent, eddy current inspect each M/R blade
for a crack or a nick in accordance with paragraph number 4 and
paragraph number 7 through 17 of Technique Number ET002, dated
November 2007, attached to Brantly International, Inc., Service
Bulletin No. 111, dated February 10, 2011 (SB 111).
    (ii) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS or
five calendar years, whichever occurs first, repeat the eddy current
inspection in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(d)(2)(i) of this AD.
    (iii) Using a metallic coin or tap hammer, tap inspect each M/R
blade for delamination in the bonded areas as shown on SB 111,
Section 4. Pay particular attention to the root area in the first 12
inches of the top and bottom of each M/R blade.
    (iv) Using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, visually
inspect for a crack, nick, crease, wrinkle, bend, extra hole (such
as a stop drill hole), extra rivet, and any inadequate rivet spacing
caused by additional holes or rivets.
    (v) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, repeat
the tap inspection in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(d)(2)(iii) of this AD and the visual inspection using a 10X or
higher power magnifying glass in accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this AD.
    (3) Before further flight, remove from service any M/R blade
with a crack, nick, crease, wrinkle, bend, extra hole, extra rivet,
delamination, or inadequate rivet spacing caused by additional holes
or rivets.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send your proposal to: Marc Belhumeur, Senior
Project Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.

(f) Additional Information

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Brantly
International, Inc, 621 South Royal Lane, Suite 100, Coppell Texas
75019, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
You may review a copy of this information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

 (g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210, Main Rotor
Blade.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 5, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-25444 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 52 (Monday, March 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14334-14336]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for

each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in
newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since
that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60. Interested lessees and owners
of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance
Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.
The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed
below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has reviewed this final
rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that this action will not have
a significant effect on the human environment. This action is covered
by categorical exclusions A4 and A7 identified in FEMA Instruction 108-
1-1 and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Instruction 023-01-001-
01, Appendix A.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 21, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                    (NAVD) # Depth in
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced   feet above ground     Communities affected
                                                 elevation              [supcaret]
                                                                       Elevation in
                                                                       meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Tazewell County, Illinois and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull Run Creek.........................  Approximately 900 feet                  +655  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of the Prairie                       Tazewell County, Village
                                          Creek confluence.                             of Morton.
                                         At the upstream side of                 +680
                                          Idlewood Street extended.
Dempsey Creek..........................  Approximately 1.4 miles                 +541  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of the Farm                          Tazewell County.
                                          Creek confluence.
                                         Approximately 2.56 miles                +603
                                          upstream of the Farm
                                          Creek confluence.
Farm Creek.............................  Approximately 770 feet                  +740  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of the railroad                      Tazewell County.
                                          bridge.
                                         At the downstream side of               +742
                                          Diebel Road.
Fond Du Lac Creek......................  At the Farm Creek                       +492  City of East Peoria,
                                          confluence.                                   Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Tazewell County.
                                         At the downstream side of               +508
                                          East Washington Street
                                          (State Route 8).
Illinois River.........................  At the upstream side of                 +454  City of Pekin,
                                          Mason Road extended.                          Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Tazewell County.
                                         Approximately 1,950 feet                +457
                                          upstream of State Route
                                          9.
Lick Creek.............................  Approximately 480 feet                  +472  City of Pekin.
                                          downstream of Parkway
                                          Drive.
                                         Approximately 680 feet                  +476
                                          upstream of Parkway
                                          Drive.
Mackinaw Creek.........................  Approximately 0.97 mile                 +588  Village of Mackinaw.
                                          downstream of Dee Mac
                                          Road (County Highway 6).
                                         Approximately 0.78 mile                 +591
                                          downstream of Dee Mac
                                          Road (County Highway 6).
Prairie Creek..........................  Approximately 0.49 mile                 +648  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of the Bull                        Tazewell County.
                                          Run Creek confluence.
                                         Approximately 650 feet                  +657
                                          downstream of Farm Road.
School Creek...........................  At the Farm Creek                       +496  City of East Peoria,
                                          confluence.                                   Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Tazewell County.

                                         Approximately 0.91 mile                 +640
                                          upstream of Gravel Pit
                                          Access Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
# Depth in feet above ground.
[supcaret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES
City of East Peoria
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 100 South Main Street, East Peoria, IL 61611.

City of Pekin
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 111 South Capitol Street, Pekin, IL 61554.

Unincorporated Areas of Tazewell County
Maps are available for inspection at McKenzie Building, 11 South 4th Street, 4th Floor, Pekin, IL 61554.

Village of Mackinaw
Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 100 East Fast Avenue, Mackinaw, IL 61755.

Village of Morton
Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 120 North Main Street, Morton, IL 61550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-05452 Filed 3-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29782-29783]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13719]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9979-38-OLEM]

Brownfields Utilization, Investment and Local Development (BUILD)
Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development
(BUILD) Act was enacted on March 23, 2018 as part of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018. The BUILD Act reauthorized the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Brownfields Program, and made amendments to
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as amended by the 2002 Small Business Liability Relief
and Brownfields Revitalization Act. These amendments affect brownfields
grants, ownership and liability provisions, and State & Tribal Response
Programs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing
policy and guidance to implement the BUILD Act amendments. As part of
this process, the EPA is soliciting comment on three provisions in the
BUILD Act: The authority to increase the per-site cleanup grant amounts
to $500,000, the new multi-purpose grant authority, and the new small
community assistance grant authority.

DATES: Comments will be accepted through July 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Please send any comments to [email protected] no later than
July 10, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Lentz, U.S. EPA, (202) 566-
2745, [email protected] or Megan Quinn, U.S. EPA,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of this notice will start a two-
week comment period for stakeholders to respond to the questions
included in this notice. Comments will be accepted through July 10,
2018. EPA expects to develop policy on these three grant programs and
incorporate them into the Agency's guidelines for the FY 2019
brownfields grant cycle.

Background

    The Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development
(BUILD) Act was enacted on March 23, 2018 as part of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018. The BUILD Act reauthorized the EPA's
Brownfields Program, and made amendments to CERCLA, as amended by the
2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act. These amendments affect brownfields grants, ownership and
liability provisions, and State & Tribal Response Programs. The EPA is
developing policy and guidance to implement the BUILD Act. As part of
that process, the EPA is soliciting comment on three provisions in the
BUILD Act: The authority to increase the per site cleanup grant amounts
to $500,000, the new multi-purpose grant authority, and the new small
community assistance grant authority.

Cleanup Grant Policy

    The BUILD Act amended CERCLA Section 104(k)(3)(A)(ii) to increase
the ceiling for brownfields cleanup grant funding from $200,000 to
$500,000 per site; eligible entities can request a waiver up to
$650,000 per site, based on the anticipated level of contamination,
size, or ownership status of the site. The applicant must own the site
to expend any resources on cleanup at the site. The Agency's primary
concern is one of community access to brownfields cleanup funds.
Increasing the amount of single cleanup grants will most likely
decrease the total number of grants that may be awarded in any given
fiscal year, therefore decreasing the number of brownfield sites
cleaned-up and communities served, particularly when annual
appropriations remain level or decrease.
    Given these parameters, the Agency is interested in receiving
comments from communities and other stakeholders on the following
considerations:
    1. If a community receives a $500,000 cleanup grant, how likely is
it that the community could meet the 20 percent cost share statutory
requirement (CERCLA 104(k)(10)(B)(iii))? How would communities meet the
20 percent cost share requirement? Do stakeholders support a higher per
grant funding amount, with cost share requirement of less than 20
percent, even if the result is fewer communities will receive
brownfields cleanup grants?
    2. In your community's experience, how long does the average
brownfield cleanup take to complete? Please provide information on the
average length of time, including from the time of state review and
approval of a clean-up plan to the time when the brownfield site is
ready for reuse. What are the barriers your community experiences in
getting a brownfield site cleaned up and ready for reuse?

Multipurpose Grant Policy

    The BUILD Act established a new Multipurpose Brownfield Grant
program. Under this new authority, EPA may provide a maximum of $1
million in funding per grant to an eligible entity to inventory,
characterize, assess, plan for or remediate one or more brownfield
sites within a target area. The statute requires that a Multipurpose
Grant recipient own the brownfields property prior to expending grant
resources to remediate the property. The grant funding may be made
available to a grant recipient for a maximum of five years. While the
EPA has authority to award multipurpose grants up to $1,000,000, the
EPA is considering piloting the grants at no more than $700,000.
    Given these parameters, the Agency is interested in receiving
comments from communities and other stakeholders on the following
considerations:
    1. Do communities most need funding for brownfields inventory,
planning, site assessment or site remediation activities?
    2. Do communities typically have in place an ``overall plan for
revitalization of the one or more brownfields within the proposed area
in which the multipurpose grant will be used'' or would they most
likely need to create this plan using multipurpose grant funds?
    3. What is a reasonable number of accomplishments (e.g.,
brownfields site assessments and site cleanups) to expect from a grant
recipient that receives a $700,000 multipurpose grant over a five-year
grant period?
    4. What complications and barriers will affect a grant recipient's
ability to achieve these accomplishments?

128(a) Small Grant Policy

    The BUILD Act added a new authority for the EPA to make grants to
states and tribes to provide training, technical assistance or research
assistance to support a small or disadvantaged community up to $20,000
per community. Site specific assessment and cleanup activities are not
allowable expenditures under this grant authority. The EPA is
developing further guidance on (1) the types of activities that are
eligible expenses (including examples of such activities) and (2) the
evaluation criteria that the EPA will use for evaluating and selecting
proposals.
    Accordingly, the EPA is soliciting comment on the following issues:
    1. The EPA anticipates that state and tribes may provide the
following activities to small and disadvantaged communities under this
grant: Brownfields outreach and education, technical support, economic
or market analyses to support the identification of reuse options for a
brownfield site, the implementation or use of the EPA's Land
Revitalization tools, and preparation of a needs assessment for
developing a Tribal Response Program. What other types of activities
should be considered as eligible expenditures under this grant program?
    2. The EPA plans to include the following evaluation criteria for
proposals submitted under this grant program: Description of the target
community, description/purpose of the proposed project, expected
outcomes, description of key activities, what entity will be conducting
the activities (e.g., state, tribe, contractor), leveraged resources
being provided (as necessary), approximate timeline for completing the
eligible activities, the amount of funding requested, an explanation of
why existing state and tribal funding is inadequate to conduct or
complete the eligible activities, and a demonstration of support from
the community that will benefit from the funded activity. What other
types of evaluation criteria may be useful for the EPA to use when
evaluating proposals and selecting grant recipients?

    Dated: June 6, 2018.
David R. Lloyd,
Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Land
and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-13719 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72508-72509]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3596-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Florida; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Florida (FEMA-3596-EM), dated August 28,
2023, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued August 28, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 28, 2023, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Florida resulting from Tropical Storm Idalia
beginning on August 27, 2023, and continuing, are of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such an emergency exists in the State of Florida.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to

75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal
assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds
available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for
Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Brett H.
Howard, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Florida have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Alachua, Bay, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Columbia, DeSoto,
Dixie, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hardee,
Hernando, Hillsborough, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lee, Leon, Levy,
Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota,
Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, and Wakulla Counties for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23171 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48660-48663]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20881]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84237; File No. SR-ISE-2018-80]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Risk
Protections

September 20, 2018.
    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 September 11, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 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 ISE Rules 100(a)(5) which contains
definitions, Rule 711, ``Acceptance of Quotes and Orders'' and Rule
714, ``Automatic Execution of Orders''.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.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
    ISE proposes to amend Rule 714, Automatic Execution of Orders, by
placing all risk protections within this rule and further creating
sections to distinguish order protections, order and quote protections
and quote protections. The Exchange believes that providing Members
with a single rule with all risk protections will provide an easy
reference to the mandatory single leg risk protections on ISE.
    The Exchange is amending the first sentence of the rule to indicate
that the information contained in Rule 714 applies to single leg
orders. The Exchange is amending Rule 714(b) to rename the caption from
``Other Order Protections'' to ``Other Single Leg Risk Protections.''
The Exchange is amending references to ``order protections'' to ``risk
protections'' within that rule to more broadly describe the type of
protections offered on ISE. Finally, the Exchange is relocating rule
text from Rule 714(c) to the end of proposed Rule 714(b), which states,
``In the event of unusual market conditions and in the interest of a
fair and orderly market, the Exchange may temporarily establish the
levels at which the order protections contained in this paragraph are
triggered as necessary and appropriate.'' These non-substantive rule
changes are intended to bring greater clarity to the rule.
    The Exchange proposes to add the following to proposed Rule
714(b)(1), ``The following are order risk protections on ISE:'' The
Exchange proposes to list all order protections within Rule 714(b)(1).
The Exchange proposes to relocate Limit Order Price Protection from
Rule 714(b)(2) to proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(A). The Exchange also
proposes to add a new sentence to the end of proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(A)
which provides, ``Limit Order Price Protection shall not apply to the
Opening Process or during a trading halt.'' The Exchange is adding this
sentence, which was not contained in the initial rule change, to make
clear the limitations as to when this protection is available on ISE.
The Exchange notes the Limit Order Price Protection rejects orders to
buy (sell) as the greater of the Exchange's best offer (bid) plus
(minus) either an absolute dollar or a percentage. The Exchange notes
that the bid or offer is not established until after an option series
options for trading. Applying this protection during the Opening
Process is not necessary as the quote width allowance is tighter during
the Opening Process.\3\ With respect to trading halts, Opening Process
procedures will be used to reopen an option series after a trading
halt, therefore, the same protections noted for the Opening Process
will apply for a trading halt and the same restrictive boundaries would
apply.\4\ This sentence memorializes the Exchange's current practice.
The Exchange believes that this rule text will bring greater clarity to
the Limit Order Price Protection functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ With respect to the Opening Process, a Quality Opening
Market is required. A Quality Opening Market a bid/ask differential
applicable to the best bid and offer from all Valid Width Quotes
defined in a table to be determined by the Exchange and published on
the Exchange's website. See ISE Rule 701(a)(7).
    \4\ See ISE Rule 701(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to relocate and re-number Market Order Spread
Protection from Rule 711(c) to proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(B). The Exchange
also proposes to add a sentence which provides, ``Market Order Spread
Protection shall not apply to the Opening Process or during a trading
halt.'' The Exchange believes that the Market Order Spread Protection
is unnecessary during the Opening Process and during a trading halt
because protections are in place during the Opening Process to ensure
that the best bid and offer displayed on the Exchange are within a
reasonable range.\5\ The Opening Process has more restrictive
boundaries than those proposed for the Market Order Spread Protection.
With respect to the Opening Process, a Quality Opening Market is
required. A Quality Opening Market requires a bid/ask differential
applicable to the best bid and offer from all Valid Width Quotes
defined in a table \6\ to be determined by the Exchange.\7\ The
Exchange's requirements during the Opening Process are more restrictive
than the proposed initial setting for the Market Order Spread
Protection, which is proposed at $5. As provided in ISE Rule 701(d),
trading halts are subject to the reopening process as provided for in
ISE Rule 701(e). The same protections noted for the Opening Process
above will apply for trading halts. The Exchange believes that the
Market Order Spread Protection is unnecessary during the Opening
Process and during a trading halt because other protections are in
place to ensure that the best bid and offer displayed on the Exchange
are within a reasonable range. The Exchange is adding this sentence to
make clear the limitations as to when this protection is available on
ISE. The Exchange believes that this rule text will bring greater
clarity to the Market Order Spread Protection functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See note 3 above. With respect to trading halts, Opening
Process procedures will be used to reopen an option series after a
trading halt, therefore, the same protections noted for the Opening
Process will apply for a trading halt and the same restrictive
boundaries would apply. See ISE Rule 701(d).
    \6\ The table is located at: https://business.nasdaq.com/media/ISESystemSettings_tcm5044-44183.pdf.
    \7\ The calculation of Quality Opening Market is based on the
best bid and offer of Valid Width Quotes. The differential between
the best bid and offer are compared to reach this determination. The
allowable differential, as determined by the Exchange, takes into
account the type of security (for example, Standard Penny Issues,
Non-Penny Issues and Special Penny Issues), volatility, option
premium, and liquidity. The Quality Opening Market differential is
intended to ensure the price at which the Exchange opens reflects
current market conditions. See ISE Rule 701(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also memorializing a sentence which was contained
in the filing which adopted Market Order Spread Protection. The
Exchange noted in the adopting filing that the Exchange may establish
differences other than the referenced threshold for one or more series
or classes of options.\8\ At this time, the Exchange proposes to
memorialize this capability within Rule 714(b)(1)(B) by stating, ``The
Exchange may establish different thresholds for one or more series or
classes of options.'' The Exchange believes that

adding this provision to the rule will add transparency to the
Exchange's capability to establish different thresholds per options
series or class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80432 (April 11, 2017),
82 FR 18193 (April 17, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to relocate Size Limitation from Rule
714(b)(3) to proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(C) without any amendments. The
Exchange proposes to add the following to proposed Rule 714(b)(2),
``The following are order and quote risk protections on ISE:''. The
Exchange proposes to list all order and quote protections within Rule
714(b)(2). The Exchange proposes to re-letter Acceptable Trade Range
from Rule 714(b)(1) to proposed Rule 714(b)(2)(A).
    The Exchange proposes to relocate Market Wide Risk Protection from
Rule 714(d) to proposed Rule 714(b)(1)(D). The Exchange is only
amending cross references within this rule to reflect the new location
of this text.
    The Exchange proposes new rule text at Rule 714(b)(3) which
provides, ``The following are Market Maker risk protections on ISE:''.
The Exchange proposes to list all Market Maker protections within Rule
714(b)(3). The Exchange proposes to relocate Anti-Internalization from
Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 804 to proposed Rule 714(b)(3)(A).
The Exchange proposes to replace the words ``market participant
identifier'' with ``Market Maker identifiers.'' The Exchange also
proposes to replace the words ``Exchange account identifier'' with
``account number.'' \9\ The Exchange believes these modifications will
bring more clarity to the functionality. The Exchange is removing the
words ``Notwithstanding Rule 804(d)(1) above'' which refer to the firm
quote.\10\ The Exchange notes that the submission of bids and offers
must be firm notwithstanding any protection offered by the Exchange,
not just Anti-Internalization. The Exchange does not believe it is
necessary to specifically cite this caveat for this order protections.
The Exchange also proposes to capitalize the defined term Market Maker
in this sentence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An ``account number'' shall mean a number assigned to a
Member. Members may have more than one account number. See Rule
100(a)(1).
    \10\ ISE Rule 804(d)(1) provides that Market Maker bids and
offers are firm for orders and Exchange Market Maker quotations both
under this Rule and Rule 602 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange
Act (``Rule 602 of Reg NMS'') for the number of contracts specified
according to the requirements of paragraph 804(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to relocate Automated Quotation Adjustments
from Rule 804(g) to proposed Rule 714(b)(3)(B). Rule 804(g) will be
reserved. The Exchange is amending references in the rule to reflect
the new placement within Rule 714 and replacing the words ``Exchange's
system (``System'')'' with the defined term System.\11\ Finally, the
term ``member'' was capitalized because it is a defined term. The
Exchange is also making clear within Rule 715(b)(3)(B)(vi) that Market
Makers must request the Exchange enable re-entry by contacting the
Exchange's Operations Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``System'' means the electronic system operated by
the Exchange that receives and disseminates quotes, executes orders
and reports transactions. See Rule 100(a)(63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of badge
within Rule 100(a)(5) to state that a badge is an account number, which
may contain letters and/or numbers, assigned to Market Makers. The
Exchange may from time to time modify the manner in which a badge is
expressed systemically. This proposed language allows for latitude in
establishing badges within the System.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by grouping the various risk protections into a single rule
for ease of reference and adding headers to the rule to make clear
whether the risk protection is an order protection, order or quote
protection or a protection applicable to Market Makers. The Exchange
believes the reorganization of the existing rule and relocation of
various rules into Rule 714 is a non-substantive rule change. The
Exchange believes that this rule change is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will bring
greater transparency to the protections offered on ISE. The Exchange's
proposal to not apply the Limit Order Price Protection during the
Opening Process is consistent with the Act because the Exchange rejects
orders to buy (sell) as the greater of the Exchange's best offer (bid)
plus (minus) either an absolute dollar or a percentage. The Exchange
notes that the bid or offer is not established until after an option
series options for trading. Applying this protection during the Opening
Process is not necessary as the quote width allowance is tighter during
the Opening Process.\14\ With respect to trading halts, Opening Process
procedures will be used to reopen an option series after a trading
halt, therefore, the same protections noted for the Opening Process
will apply for a trading halt and the same restrictive boundaries would
apply.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ See note 3 above.
    \15\ See ISE Rule 701(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to not apply the Market Order Spread
Protection during the Opening Process is consistent with the Act
because protections exist during the Opening Process to ensure that the
best bid and offer displayed on the Exchange are within a reasonable
range. The Exchange's Opening Process Rule 701 \16\ and the reopening
process after a trading halt \17\ both contain more restrictive
boundaries than those proposed or the Market Order Spread Protection.
With respect to the Opening Process, a Quality Opening Market is
required. A Quality Opening Market requires a bid/ask differential
applicable to the best bid and offer from all Valid Width Quotes
defined in a table to be determined by the Exchange.\18\ The Exchange's
requirements during the Opening Process are more restrictive than the
proposed initial setting for the Market Order Spread Protection, which
is set at $5. The same protections noted for the Opening Process above
will apply for trading halts. The Exchange believes that the Market
Order Spread Protection is unnecessary during the Opening Process and
during a trading halt because other protections are in place to ensure
that the best bid and offer displayed on the Exchange are within a
reasonable range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See note 3 above.
    \17\ With respect to trading halts, Opening Process procedures
will be used to reopen an option series after a trading halt,
therefore, the same protections noted for the Opening Process will
apply for a trading halt and the same restrictive boundaries would
apply. See ISE Rule 701(d).
    \18\ The table is located at: https://business.nasdaq.com/media/ISESystemSettings_tcm5044-44183.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Memorializing the ability of the Exchange to establish different
Market Order Spread Protection thresholds per options series or class
will also bring greater clarity to the rule. Today, the Exchange has
this ability, it is simply adding that text to the rule. Utilizing
defined terms within the Rulebook will also bring clarity to the rules.
The Exchange also believes using more discrete language within the
Anti-Internalization rule will clarify the functionality.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that expanding the definition of a
badge is consistent with the Act because it

allows the Exchange the flexibility to administer the badges within its
System.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not impose an
intra-market burden on competition with respect to the reorganization
and relocation of the various rules into Rule 714 because the various
risk protections are mandatory and will continue to apply uniformly to
all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the addition
of specific limitations to both the Limit Order Price Protection and
Market Order Spread Protection rules will provide market participants
with greater information as to when these protections will apply. These
limitations apply uniformly to all market participants. The remainder
of the rule changes are intended to bring greater transparency to the
current operation of the Exchange's rules.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \21\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \22\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The
Exchange argues that waiver of the operative delay would allow the
Exchange to immediately incorporate all risk protections into Rule 714
and bring greater transparency to the risk protections offered on the
Exchange. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-80 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-ISE-2018-80. 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 tomake available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-80, and should be submitted on
or before October 17, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20881 Filed 9-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P