[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15036-15038]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0284; Product Identifier 2018-CE-014-AD; Amendment
39-19246; AD 2018-07-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; XtremeAir GmbH Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes equipped with an engine mount part
number XA42-7120-151. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of
another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking
of the diagonal strut of the engine mount frame. We are issuing this AD
to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 30, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 30,
2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by May 24, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact XtremeAir
GmbH, Harzstrasse 2, Am Flughafen Cochstedt, D-39444 Hecklingen,
Germany; phone: +49 39267 60999 0; fax: +49 39267 60999 20; email:
[email protected]; internet: https://www.xtremeair.com. You may view
this referenced service

information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating
Docket No. FAA-2018-0284.

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-2018-
0284; 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 regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Policy and Innovation Divsion, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No. 2018-0050-E, dated March 2, 2018 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for XtremeAir GmbH Model
XA42 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a scheduled maintenance inspection of an XA42 aeroplane,
a crack was detected on a diagonal strut of engine mount frame P/N
XA42-7120-151.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
crack growth and subsequently partial or complete failure of the
structural joint, possibly resulting in in-flight detachment of the
engine and consequent loss of control of the aeroplane, and/or
injury to persons on the ground.
    Prompted by this finding, XtremeAir issued the SB to provide
inspection instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive inspections of the affected part and, depending on
findings, replacement.
    This [EASA] AD is considered interim action and further AD
action may follow.

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0284.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    XtremeAir GmbH has issued XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-
XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018. The service information
describes procedures for inspection of the engine mount for cracks and
replacement of the engine mount if necessary. This service information
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in the ADDRESSES section of the AD.
    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD
    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
cracking of the engine mount frame could lead to in-flight detachment
of the engine and result in loss of control. Therefore, we determined
that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD
are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0284; Directorate
Identifier 2018-CE-014-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 13 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $552.50, or $42.50 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000, for a cost
of $7,040.00 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 AD:

2018-07-15 XtremeAir GmbH: Amendment 39-19246; Docket No. FAA-2018-
0284; Directorate Identifier 2018-CE-014-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 30,
2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes, all
serial numbers, that are:
    (1) Equipped with an engine mount part number (P/N) XA42-7120-
151; and
    (2) certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 71: Power Plant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the
diagonal strut of the engine mount frame. We are issuing this AD to
detect and address cracking of the engine mount frame, which could
lead to detachment of the engine in-flight and result in loss of
control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (4) of this AD.
    (1) Before the next acrobatic flight after April 30, 2018 (the
effective date of this AD) or within 50 hours time-in-service after
the installation of P/N XA42-7120-151 engine mount on the airplane,
whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 10 acrobatic flight hours, inspect the engine mount
following the Accomplishment Instructions in XtremeAir Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018.
    (2) After the initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, acrobatic flight hours must be recorded in the maintenance
records. For the purpose of this AD, we define acrobatic flight as
``flight during which a load factor of 6g is exceeded.''
    (3) If a crack is found during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the
engine mount with a serviceable part following the Accomplishment
Instructions in XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-
006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018. Replacement of the engine
mount does not eliminate the repetitive inspection requirement in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD, you may install a new
or used P/N XA42-7120-151 engine mount on the airplane. The used P/N
XA42-7120-151 engine mount must be inspected as specified in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and found free of cracks before
installation on the airplane. The repetitive inspection requirement
in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD still applies.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-
4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Small Airplane
Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA).

(h) Special Flight Permit

    A special flight permit is allowed for this AD per 14 CFR 39.23
with the following limitations: Acrobatic flights are prohibited.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI, EASA AD No. 2018-0050-E, dated March 2, 2018, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0284.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue
A.00, dated March 2, 2018.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For XtremeAir service information identified in this AD,
contact XtremeAir GmbH, Harzstrasse 2, Am Flughafen Cochstedt, D-
39444 Hecklingen, Germany; phone: +49 39267 60999 0; fax: +49 39267
60999 20; email: [email protected]; internet: https://www.xtremeair.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and
Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0284.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 30, 2018.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-06949 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18824-18825]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08094]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[NHTSA-2017-0008]

Notice of Request for Applications for Appointment to the
National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Request for Applicants for Appointment/Reappointment
to the National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA and its partners at the Departments of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and Homeland Security (DHS) are soliciting applications
for appointment or reappointment to DOT's NEMSAC. The purpose of
NEMSAC, a nationally recognized council of emergency medical services
representatives and consumers, is to advise and consult with DOT and
the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS) on matters relating
to emergency medical services (EMS). More information on NEMSAC,
including its previous recommendations, its charter, and its current
membership is available at www.EMS.gov/NEMSAC.htm.

DATES: Application packages as described below must be received by
NHTSA on or before June 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to apply for membership, your application
package should be submitted by:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
     Mail: Use only overnight mail such as UPS or FedEx to:
    U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Office of Emergency Medical Services, Attn: Susan
McHenry, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Any person needing accessibility accommodations should contact
Susan McHenry at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer, Jon
Krohmer, Director, Office of Emergency Medical Services at (202) 366-
9966; or Susan McHenry at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this call for applications is
given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as
amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The NEMSAC is authorized under Section 31108
of the Moving Ahead with Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012.
    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is hereby
soliciting nominations for members of the NEMSAC. The Secretary of
Transportation, in coordination with HHS and DHS, will appoint 25
Council members on or around July 21, 2017. Members will be selected
with a view toward achieving a varied and balanced perspective on
emergency medical services. The Council will be composed of non-Federal
experts representing

various sectors of the EMS community. To the extent reasonable, one
member will be appointed to represent the perspectives of each of the
following 24 particular sectors of EMS:

 EMS Practitioners
 Volunteer EMS
 Fire-based (career) EMS
 Private (career non-fire) EMS
 Hospital-based EMS
 Tribal EMS
 Air Medical EMS
 Local EMS service director/administrators
 EMS Medical Directors
 Emergency Physicians
 Trauma Surgeons
 Pediatric Emergency Physicians
 State EMS Directors
 State Highway Safety Directors
 EMS Educators
 Public Safety Call-Taker/Dispatcher (911)
 EMS Data Managers
 EMS Quality Improvement
 EMS Researchers
 Emergency Nurses
 Hospital Administration
 Public Health
 Emergency Management
 Consumers (not directly affiliated with an EMS or healthcare
organization)
 State or local legislative bodies (e.g. city/county councils;
State legislatures)

The Council's broad-based membership will assure that it has sufficient
EMS system expertise and geographic and demographic diversity to
accurately reflect the EMS community as a whole. Applications for
members within the EMS community will be solicited from a wide array of
national organizations and the public. These members will be selected
for their individual expertise and to assure balanced representation
from across the EMS community, but no member will represent a specific
organization or association. Membership balance is not static and may
change, depending on the work of the Council.
    Council members serve for a term of 2 years and may be reappointed
for one additional successive term. The Chair and Vice Chair of the
Council are elected annually from among the selected members, and the
Council is expected to meet approximately three times per year or as
necessary in Washington, DC. Members serve in a ``representative''
capacity on NEMSAC and not as Special Government Employees. Members are
unpaid; however, the NHTSA Office of EMS sponsors the associated costs
for members to travel to Washington, DC.
    Process and Deadline for Submitting New Applications: Individuals
must self-nominate and must apply to represent specific sectors of EMS
as outlined above. Applicants may apply to represent more than one
sector. There is no standard application. Instead, to be considered for
the NEMSAC, applicants must submit the following information in a
single package:
    (1) A cover letter addressed to the Designated Federal Officer, Jon
Krohmer, that includes:
    a. The applicant's full name, title, home address, phone number,
and email address;
    b. Under the heading ``SECTOR(S) OF EMS'' a listing of which
sectors of EMS the applicant is applying to represent from the list of
24 above; and
    c. An explanation of why the applicant is applying to be a NEMSAC
member and how their experience and/or education qualifies them to
represent each sector for which they are applying to represent;
    (2) A resume or curriculum vitae;
    (3) A short biography of the applicant including professional and
academic credentials not to exceed 150 words;
    (4) Up to four (4) letters of support or recommendation from a
company, union, trade association, non-profit organization or
individual on letterhead containing a brief description why the
applicant should be considered for appointment; and
    (5) An affirmative statement that the applicant is not a federally
registered lobbyist, and that the applicant understands that if
appointed, the applicant will not be allowed to continue to serve as a
Council member if the applicant becomes a federally registered
lobbyist;
    Please do not send company, trade association, or organization
brochures or any other information. Should more information be needed,
DOT staff will contact the applicant, obtain information from their
past affiliations, or obtain information from publicly available
sources, such as the Internet.
    It is preferred that application packages be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>but they may also be faxed to the attention of Susan
McHenry at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the U.S Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office
of Emergency Medical Services, Attn: Susan McHenry, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590. If mailing, please use only
overnight mail such as UPS or FedEx. Applications must be received on
or before June 16, 2017. Applications selected for appointment to the
NEMSAC will be notified by email and by a letter of appointment.
    Process and Deadline for Current NEMSAC Members to Apply for
Reappointment: The NEMSAC charter stipulates a two-term limit for
appointees, thus currently appointed members of NEMSAC in their first
terms are eligible to apply for reappointment. Current NEMSAC members
in their first term may apply for reappointment by submitting a cover
letter addressed to the Designated Federal Officer, Jon Krohmer with an
explanation of why the member is seeking reappointment and an updated
resume or curriculum vitae. The deadline and methods for submission are
the same as above for new applicants.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 18. 2017.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2017-08094 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75220-75223]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29497]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73820; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify a Level 2 Professional Subscriber Fee

December 11, 2014
    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 November 28, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify the NASDAQ Level 2 Professional
Subscriber (``Subscriber'') fee. While the changes proposed herein are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments
be operative on January 1, 2015.
* * * * *

7023. NASDAQ Depth-of-Book Data

    (a) No change.
    (b) Subscriber Fees.
    (1) NASDAQ Level 2.
    (A) Non-Professional Subscribers pay a monthly fee of $9 each;
    (B) Professional Subscribers pay a monthly fee of $[4]50 each for
Display Usage based upon Direct or Indirect Access, or for Non-Display
Usage based upon Indirect Access only;
    (C)-(E) No Change.
    (2)-(4) No change.
    (c)-(e) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the NASDAQ
Level 2 Professional Subscriber fee (``Level 2 fee''). Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to increase the Level 2 fee by $5 from $45 to $50
for display usage based upon direct or indirect access, or for non-
display usage based upon indirect access only. This proposed rule
change will not affect the pricing of the NASDAQ OpenView Non-
Professional and Professional Subscriber fees.
    The NASDAQ Level 2 product is completely optional. NASDAQ has
enhanced this product through capacity upgrades and regulatory data
sets over the last approximately 30 years and the release of a new
(more efficient) binary version this year. The network capacity for
NASDAQ Level 2 has increased from a 56 Kb feed in 1983 to the current
33 Mb feed. Additionally, since NASDAQ Level 2 is also used for market
making functions, NASDAQ has invested over the years to add regulatory
data sets, such as Market Maker Mode, Trading Action status, Limit Up--
Limit Down, Market Wide Circuit Breaker (MWCB) messaging, Short Sale
Threshold Indicator, as well as other regulatory information.
    In 2014 NASDAQ expanded the reference data available for each
security. Level 2 had also been improved with the release this year to
give more transparency on Issue Classification and associated Issue
Sub-Type, as well as the IPO flag and the flags to help further
identify exchange traded products. Additionally, NASDAQ is taking steps
to increase resiliency with the upcoming additional back-up feed (also
referred to as the ``B'' feed) in the Carteret co-location facility.
This helps to reduce cost for customers by receiving both the ``A''
feed and ``B'' feed from the same co-location facility while retaining
an additional ``B'' feed out of the mid-Atlantic co-location facility
to reduce proximity risk.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Subscribers
and recipients of NASDAQ data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between them. NASDAQ's proposal to increase the Level 2
fee by $5 from $45 to $50 for display usage based upon direct or
indirect access, or for non-display usage based upon indirect access
only, is also consistent with the Act in that it reflects an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees. The Commission has long recognized the
fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory nature of
assessing different fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users of
the same data. NASDAQ also believes it is equitable to assess a higher
fee per Professional User than to an ordinary Non-Professional User due
to the enhanced flexibility, lower overall costs and value that it
offers Distributors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public.
    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows

that the price at which such data is sold should be set by the market
as well. Level 2 is precisely the sort of market data products that the
Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010) (``NetCoalition I''), upheld the Commission's reliance upon
competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for
market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
NetCoaltion I, at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).
    NASDAQ believes that the allocation of the proposed fee is fair and
equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not
unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act. As described above, the proposed fee is based on pricing
conventions and distinctions that exist in NASDAQ's current fee
schedule. These distinctions are each based on principles of fairness
and equity that have helped for many years to maintain fair, equitable,
and not unreasonably discriminatory fees, and that apply with equal or
greater force to the current proposal.
    As described in greater detail below, if NASDAQ has calculated
improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair,
inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can discontinue the
use of their data because the proposed product is entirely optional to
all parties. Firms are not required to purchase data and NASDAQ is not
required to make data available or to offer specific pricing
alternatives for potential purchases. NASDAQ can discontinue offering a
pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue
their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including
due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. NASDAQ
continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at increasing
fairness and equitable allocation of fees among Subscribers.
    NASDAQ believes that periodically it must adjust the Subscriber
fees to reflect market forces. NASDAQ believes it is an appropriate
time to adjust this fee to more accurately reflect the investments made
to enhance this product through capacity upgrades and regulatory data
sets added. This also reflects that the market for this information is
highly competitive and continually evolves as products develop and
change.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon
competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market
data, the NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that
case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that
the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. NASDAQ
believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the
competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. Data products
are valuable to many end Subscribers only insofar as they provide
information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or their
customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or
data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition at
24. However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow implies
a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of broker-dealers with
order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders
toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A broker-dealer that shifted its
order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution
price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's
market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored
platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data fees, the
change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the
platform, and affected broker-dealers will assess whether they can
lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby
lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.

    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the availability of after-market alternatives to the
manufacturer-supplied system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including thirteen self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC,
NYSE Arca LLC, and BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'').
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing data on the Internet. Second, because a single order or
transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO
proprietary product, or both, the data available in proprietary
products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and
transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end Subscribers. Vendors impose price restraints based upon
their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and
Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to
offer proprietary products that end Subscribers will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail
broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers
proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient
commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these
vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse to
purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient
value. NASDAQ and other producers of proprietary data products must
understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing
disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN and BATS Trading. A proliferation of
dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of
consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters.
    The vigor of competition for information is significant. NASDAQ has
made a determination to adjust the fees associated with this product in
order to reflect more accurately the value of its products and the
investments made to enhance them, as well as to keep pace with changes
in the industry and evolving customer needs. This product is entirely
optional and is geared towards attracting new customers, as well as
retaining existing customers.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the course of the past year.
NASDAQ continues to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, firms make decisions on
how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total
cost of interacting with NASDAQ or other exchanges. Of course, the
explicit data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis.
Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and
others are vice versa. The market for this information is highly
competitive and continually evolves as products develop and change.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\6\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)[sic](ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-2014-111 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-111. 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 offices of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-111, and
should be submitted on or before January 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29497 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 44026]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1997-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Indiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1997-DR), dated June 23, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, 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 the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective June 6, 2011.

    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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-18461 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


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

General Comment:75 days to submit comments on the proposed legislation is insufficient time for those affected by this measure to be heard, please consider my request for this time period to be extended to 180 days.

thank you!


[Federal Register: December 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 76075]
[DOCID:fr15de08-104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday,
December 17, 2008 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    Item 1: The Commission will consider whether to approve the 2009
budget of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and will
consider the related annual accounting support fee for the Board under
Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
    Item 2: The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to
provide for companies' financial statement information to be filed with
the Commission in interactive data format, according to a specified
phase-in schedule.
    Item 3: The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to
provide for mutual fund risk/return summary information to be filed
with the Commission in interactive data format. The Commission will
also consider whether to adopt amendments to permit investment
companies to submit portfolio holdings information under the
Commission's interactive data voluntary program without being required
to submit other financial information.
    Item 4: The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments
that would define terms related to annuity contracts under the
Securities Act of 1933, and whether to adopt amendments related to
periodic reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 10, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-29683 Filed 12-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85709-85712]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28670]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90742; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-062]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Amend Its Fees Schedule

December 21, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 10, 2020, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity
options platform (``EDGX Options'') by removing certain fee codes
related to routed orders, by updating certain fee codes in connection
with routing orders in SPY options to Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``PHLX''), and
removing certain fee codes in light of the recent delisting of XSP
options on the Exchange.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
December 1, 2020 (SR-CboeEDGX-2020-057). On December 9, 2020, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 16% of the market share and
currently the Exchange represents approximately 4% of the market
share.\4\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive
market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange, possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. The
Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Month-to-Date
Volume Summary (November 23, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange assesses fees in connection with orders routed away to
various exchanges. Currently, under the Fee Codes and Associated Fees
section of the Fee Schedule, fee codes D1, D2, D3 and D4 are appended
to Members'

Directed ISOs, a routing option under which an intermarket sweep order
(``ISO'') entered by a User bypasses the System and is sent by the
System to another options exchange specified by the User.\5\
Specifically, these fee codes function as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 21.9(a)(2)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fee code D1 is appended to Directed ISOs to Nasdaq Options
Market LLC (``NOM''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``ARCA'') or ISE Gemini, LLC
(``ISE Gemini'') in Non-Penny classes and assesses a charge of $1.25
per contract;
     fee code D2 is appended to Non-Customer Directed ISOs to
Nasdaq BX Options (``BX'') in Non-Penny classes and assesses a charge
of $0.95 per contract;
     fee code D3 is appended to Non-Customer Directed ISOs to
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') or PHLX and assesses a charge of $0.95
per contract; and
     fee code D4 is appended to Directed ISOs (unless otherwise
specified in the Fee Schedule) and assesses a charge of $0.85 per
contract.
    The Exchange has observed a minimal amount of volume in recent
months in orders yielding fee codes D1, D2, D3 or D4. The Exchange
believes that, because so few Users elect to route their orders as
Directed ISOs, the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure
and ongoing Systems maintenance required to support separate fee codes
specifically applicable to Directed ISOs. Therefore, the Exchange now
proposes to delete fee codes D1, D2, D3 and D4 in the Fee Schedule. The
Exchange notes that Users will continue to be able to choose to route
their orders as Directed ISOs and such orders will be assessed the fees
currently in place for routed orders generally (i.e., fee codes RN,\6\
RO,\7\ RP,\8\ RQ \9\ and RR \10\) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fee code RN is appended to routed Non-Customer orders in
Penny Pilot classes and assesses a charge of $0.90 per contract.
    \7\ Fee code RO is appended to all routed Non-Customer orders in
Non-Penny classes and assesses a charge of $1.25 per contract.
    \8\ Fee code RP is appended to routed Customer orders to AMEX,
BOX, BX, Cboe, ISE Mercury, MIAX or PHLX and assesses a charge of
$0.25 per contract.
    \9\ Fee code RQ is appended to routed Customer orders in Penny
Pilot classes to ARCA, BZX Options, C2, ISE, ISE Gemini, MIAX
Emerald, MIAX Pearl or NOM and assesses a charge of $0.85 per
contract.
    \10\ Fee code RR is appended to routed Customer orders in Non-
Penny classes to ARCA, BZX Options, C2, ISE, ISE Gemini, MIAX
Emerald, MIAX Pearl or NOM and assesses a charge of $1.25 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A Directed ISO to which fee code D1 would have prior been
appended (routed to NOM, ARCA or ISE Gemini in a Non-Penny class) will
yield fee code RR, if it is a Customer order, which is appended to
Customer orders in Non-Penny classes routed to NOM, ARCA or ISE Gemini
(among other exchanges) and assesses a charge of $1.25 per contract, or
will yield fee code RO, if it is a Non-Customer order, which is
appended to routed Non-Customer orders in Non-Penny classes and also
assesses a charge of $1.25 per contract;
     a Directed ISO to which fee code D2 would have prior been
appended (Non-Customer to BX in a Non-Penny class) will yield fee code
RO;
     a Directed ISO to which fee code D3 would have prior been
appended (Non-Customer to C2 or PHLX) will yield fee code RN, if in a
Penny Pilot class, which is appended to Non-Customer orders routed in
Penny Pilot classes and assesses a charge of $0.90 per contract, or
will yield fee code RO, if in a Non-Penny class; and
     a Directed ISO to which fee code D4 would have prior been
appended (unless otherwise specified) may yield any of fee codes RN,
RO, RP, RQ and RR, depending on whether the order is a (1) routed
Customer order in a Penny Pilot class (to which fee code RP, which
assess a charge of $0.25 per contract, or RQ, which assesses a charge
of $0.85 per contract, could apply depending on the away exchange), (2)
a routed Customer order in a Non-Penny class (to which fee code RP or
RR could apply depending on the away exchange), (3) is a routed Non-
Customer order in a Penny Pilot class (to which fee code RN will
apply), or (4) is a routed Non-Customer order in a Non-Penny Class (to
which fee code RO will apply).
    The Exchange also proposes to update fee codes RP and RQ in
connection with routed Customer orders in SPY options to PHLX.
Currently, fee code RP is appended to routed Customer orders to NYSE
American (``AMEX''), BOX Options Exchange (``BOX''), BX, Cboe Exchange,
Inc. (``Cboe''), ISE Mercury, LLC (``ISE Mercury''), MIAX Options
Exchange (``MIAX'') or PHLX and assesses a charge of $0.25 per
contract. Fee code RQ is appended to routed Customer orders in Penny
Pilot classes to ARCA, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''), C2,
Nasdaq ISE (``ISE''), ISE Gemini, MIAX Emerald Exchange (``MIAX
Emerald''), MIAX Pearl Exchange (``MIAX Pearl''), or NOM and assesses a
charge of $0.85 per contract. The Exchange notes that its current
approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain
sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other
options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by
each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (i.e., clearing
fees, connectivity and other infrastructure costs, membership fees,
etc.) (collectively, ``Routing Costs''). The Exchange then monitors the
fees charged as compared to the costs of its routing services and
adjusts its routing fees and/or sub-categories to ensure that the
Exchange's fees do indeed result in a rough approximation of overall
Routing Costs, and are not significantly higher or lower in any area.
Currently, PHLX assesses a charge of $0.42 per contract for Customer
orders in SPY options that remove liquidity.\11\ As described above,
the Exchange currently assesses a flat routing fee of $0.25 for
Customer orders routed to PHLX which yield fee code RP. This structure
does not currently take into account the $0.42 per contract fee
assessed by PHLX for Customer orders in SPY options. Therefore, in
order to assess fees more in line with the Exchange's current approach
to routing fees, that is, in a manner that approximates the cost of
routing to Customer orders in SPY options to PHLX, along with other
away options exchanges, based on the general cost of transaction fees
assessed by the sub-category of away options exchanges for such orders
(as well as the Exchange's Routing Costs), the Exchange proposes to
exclude Customer orders in SPY options routed to PHLX from orders that
yield fee code RP and are assessed a charge of $0.25 per contract and,
instead, add Customer orders routed to PHLX in SPY options only to
orders that yield fee code RQ \12\ and are assessed a charge of $0.85
per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Nasdaq Phlx Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 3
``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY'', Part
A.
    \12\ The Exchange notes that SPY options are part of the Penny
Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate fee codes associated with
orders in XSP options as the Exchange recently delisted XSP options for
trading on the Exchange. Specifically, under the Fees and Associated
Fee Codes section of the Fee Schedule, the proposed rule change removes
fees codes XB, XC, XD, XF, XL, XM, XN, XO, XP, XR, XS, XT and XV, all
of which were appended to various orders in XSP options. The proposed
rule change also removes references to fee codes associated with orders
in XSP options from the Step Up Mechanism (``SUM'') Auction Pricing
Tier in footnote 3 and AIM and SAM Pricing in footnote 6.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \15\ 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, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change
reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members. The Exchange notes that other options exchanges currently
approximate routing fees in a similar manner as the Exchange's current
approach.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, ``Routing
Fees'', which provides routing fees of ``$0.11 per contract on
orders routed and executed on another exchange, plus (i) any
transaction fees assessed by the away exchange (calculated on an
order-by-order basis since different away exchanges charge different
amounts) or (ii) if the actual transaction fees assessed by the away
exchange(s) cannot be determined prior to the execution, the highest
per contract charge assessed by the away exchange(s) for the
relevant option class and type of market participant (e.g.,
Customer, Firm, Broker/Dealer, Professional Customer or Market
Maker).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to
remove fee codes D1, D2, D3 and D4 is reasonable as the Exchange has
observed a minimal amount of volume in orders yielding fee codes D1,
D2, D3 or D4 and, therefore, the current use of Directed ISO orders
does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing Systems maintenance
required to support separate fee codes specifically applicable to
Directed ISOs, a type of routing option Users may elect for their
orders. As such, the Exchange also believes that is reasonable and
equitable to assess Directed ISO orders as it already does for all
other routed orders, as applicable (i.e., fee codes RN, RO, RP, RQ and
RR).\17\ The Exchange notes that the use of Directed ISOs, as well as
routing through the Exchange, is optional. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because Users will continue to have the option to elect to route their
orders as Directed ISOs and such routed orders will be automatically
and uniformly assessed the applicable charges already in place for all
other routed orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra notes 6-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to amend fee codes
RP and RQ to account for PHLX's current assessment of fees for Customer
orders in SPY options is reasonable because it is reasonably designed
to assess routing fees in line with the Exchange's current approach to
routing fees. That is, the proposed rule change is intended to include
Customer orders in SPY options routed to PHLX in the most appropriate
sub-category of fees that approximates the cost of routing to a group
of away options exchanges (including PHLX) based on the cost of
transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as Routing Costs to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all Members' Customer
orders in SPY routed to PHLX will automatically yield fee code RQ and
uniformly be assessed the corresponding fee.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to remove
fee codes associated with orders in XSP options, as well as references
in the Fee Schedule to such orders, because the Exchange no longer
lists XSP options for trading. Therefore, the proposed rule change is
reasonably designed to update the Fee Schedule to accurately reflect
the Exchange's current product offerings. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because all Members are equally unable to submit orders in the delisted
product, and the removal of references to orders in XSP options merely
updates the Fee Schedule to reflect this.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition because all Members Directed ISO order will automatically
and uniformly be assessed the current fees already in place for routed
orders, as applicable (i.e., fee codes RN, RO, RP, RQ and RR).\18\
Likewise, all Members' Customer orders in SPY routed to PHLX will
automatically yield fee code RQ and uniformly be assessed the
corresponding fee. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
to remove fee codes associated with and references to orders in XSP
options merely updates the Fee Schedule to reflect that the product
have been delisted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra notes 6-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
notes that other options exchange approximate routing costs in a
similar manner as the Exchange's current approach.\19\ Also, as
previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may
participate on and director their order flow, including 15 other
options exchanges and off-exchange venues. Additionally, the Exchange
represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly
available information, no single options exchange has more than 16% of
the market share.\20\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of option order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, 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.'' \21\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also 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.'. . .''\22\ Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 16.
    \20\ See supra note 4.
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \22\ 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \24\
thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed
by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(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 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-CboeEDGX-2020-062 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-CboeEDGX-2020-062. 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; 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-CboeEDGX-2020-062 and should
be submitted on or before January 19, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28670 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65654]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26224]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0614; FRL-9918-80]

FIFRA SAP; Notice of Supplemental Information for Previously
Announced Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is supplementing the public meeting notice provided in the
Federal Register on September 16, 2014, which announced a 4-day meeting
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific
Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) scheduled for December 2-5, 2014, to
consider and review scientific uncertainties associated with Integrated
Endocrine Activity and Exposure-based Prioritization and Screening.
Specifically, EPA is announcing the change of the assigned Designated
Federal Official (DFO) for this meeting from Alva Daniels to Fred
Jenkins, and that the meeting materials that have been provided to the
FIFRA SAP members and are now available in the docket for this meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 2-5, 2014, from
approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Comments. As indicated previously, the Agency encourages that
written comments be submitted by November 18, 2014, and requests for
oral comments be submitted by November 25, 2014. However, written
comments and requests to make oral comments may be submitted until the
date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after
November 18, 2014, should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION in the public meeting notice that published
in the Federal Register of September 16, 2014.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time
as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Jenkins, DFO, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-3327; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The detailed information about this meeting
and instructions for commenting are provided in the original public
meeting notice that published in the Federal Register of September 16,
2014 (79 FR 55475) (FRL 9915-55). As indicated in the original public
meeting announcement of September 16, 2014, you may access available
meeting materials for this FIFRA SAP meeting at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap.
    Any requests to present oral comments, requests for special
accommodations, or inquiries about this meeting should now be directed
to Fred Jenkins, the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
in this document.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: October 29, 2014.
David Dix,
Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-26224 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13744-13745]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06429]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[9975-11-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of
Missouri's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized
programs to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA approves the authorized program revision for the State of
Missouri's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program as of April 30, 2018, if no timely request for a public hearing
is received and accepted by the Agency. EPA approves the State's other
authorized program revisions as of March 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On February 14, 2018, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MoDNR) submitted an application titled ``Missouri Gateway to
Environmental Management'' for revisions/modifications to its EPA-
approved programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting.
EPA reviewed MoDNR's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized
programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application
met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/
modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with
40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Missouri's
request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow
electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 50-52, 60-65, 70, 122, 125,
141, 144, 146, 240-259, 260-270, 272-279, 280, 403-471, and 763 is
being published in the Federal Register:
    Part 52--Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
    Part 62--Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants;
    Part 63--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Categories;
    Part 70--State Operating Permit Programs;
    Part 123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System;
    Part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation;
    Part 145--State Underground Injection Control Programs;
    Part 239--Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of
Adequacy;
    Part 271--Requirements for Authorization of State Hazardous: Waste
Program;
    Part 281--Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements
for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks;
    Part 403--General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution; and
    Part 763--Asbestos.
    MoDNR was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State
of Missouri's request to revise its authorized public water system
program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f).
Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of
publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should
include the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a
hearing;
    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's
determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing,
and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
consider when determining whether to grant the request;
    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and
granted, EPA's approval of the State of Missouri's request to revise
its part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become
effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to
CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-06429 Filed 3-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P