[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 35 (Thursday, February 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11451-11452]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03484]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0291; FRL-9959-50-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; State Review Framework (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``State Review Framework
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2185.06, OMB Control No. 2020-0031) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through February 28, 2017. Public comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register 81 FR 70421 on October 12, 2016 during a 60-
day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for
public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 27,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2010-0291, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Knopes, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance;
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-
2337; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The State Review Framework is an oversight tool designed
to assess state performance in enforcement and compliance assurance.
The Framework's goal is to evaluate state performance by examining
existing data to provide a consistent level of oversight and develop a
uniform mechanism by which EPA Regions, working collaboratively with
their states, can ensure that state environmental agencies are
consistently implementing the national compliance and enforcement
program in order to meet agreed-upon goals. Furthermore, the Framework
is designed to foster dialogue on enforcement and compliance
performance between the states that will enhance relationships and
increase feedback, which will in turn lead to consistent program
management and improved environmental results. The Framework is
described in the April 26, 2005 Federal Register Notice (79 FR 21408).
This request will allow OECA to collect information from enforcement
and compliance files reviewed during routine on-site visits of state or
local agency offices that will assist in the evaluation of the State
Review Framework implementation from FY 2017 to the end of FY 2019. It
will allow also EPA to make inquiries to assess the State Review
Framework process, including the consistency achieved among the EPA
Regions and states, the resources required to conduct the reviews, and
the overall effectiveness of the program.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: States, localities, and territories.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required as part of program
authorization under the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Acts.
    Estimated number of respondents: 54 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once every five years.
    Total estimated burden: 2,765 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $108,649 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,862 hours (per year)
in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR
currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects full implementation
of efficiencies instituted just prior to the submittal of the currently
approved ICR in addition to continued experience on the part of
respondents with the review process. Also, adjustments were made to the
estimates because several alternative respondents were consulted to who
had completed a more recent review.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-03484 Filed 2-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69083-69084]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27434]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079; FRL--9902-88-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through December 31, 2013. Public comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register (78 FR 45188) on July 26, 2013 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 18,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0079, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. H. Lynn Dail, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C539-
01, Environmental Protection Agency, T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-0824; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA ICR Number: 2236.04.
    OMB Control Number: 2060-0594.
    Abstract: This ICR assesses the burden (in hours and dollars) of
the 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
Implementation Rule as well as the periodic reporting and record
keeping necessary to maintain the rule. The rule was proposed on June
2, 2003, (68 FR 32802) and promulgated in two Phases: Phase 1 published
on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23951) and Phase 2 published on November 29,
2005 (70 FR 71612). The rule includes requirements that involve
collecting information from states with areas that remain designated
non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These information
collection milestones include state submission of an attainment
demonstration SIP, a RFP SIP submission, and a RACT SIP. However, not
all of the milestones and associated burden and administrative costs
estimates apply to every designated nonattainment area. The burden
estimated is for six of the thirty-eight non-attainment areas that were
reclassified to a higher classification resulting in new SIP revisions
required. The remaining thirty-two non-attainment areas have either met
the requirements or have their requirements suspended.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: States and regional entities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory as required by the
Clean Air Act, Section 110.
    Estimated number of respondents: 6 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 11,667 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $759,500 (per year), which includes no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 5,000 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This is due to a number of reasons that include: (1)
The burden associated with one remaining non-attainment area that may
receive a mandatory reclassification is estimated to be the same as
areas completing the initial SIP framework because of the work they
must complete to reevaluate databases, emissions inventories, legal
authorities, state rule development, publication and public hearing to
comply with the standards; (2) EPA's final rule of May 14, 2012 (77 FR
28423) assigning former subpart 1 ozone non-attainment areas re-
designations under subpart 2, resulted in non-attainment areas with
additional burden for completing SIP revisions; (3) the number of non-
attainment areas has decreased as areas have come into compliance with
the standards; and (4) the number of non-attainment areas with SIP
revisions required has decreased as areas have either submitted the
requirements or the planning

requirements have been suspended with a Clean Data Determination.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-27434 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71907-71911]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22928]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98733; File No. SR-PEARL-2023-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
Pearl Options Fee Schedule for Purge Ports

October 12, 2023.
    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 29, 2023, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Pearl Options Exchange Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to amend fees for MIAX Express Network
(``MEO'') \3\ Purge Ports (``Purge Ports'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``MEO Interface'' or ``MEO'' means a binary order interface
for certain order types as set forth in Rule 516 into the MIAX Pearl
System. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange
Rule 100.
    \4\ The proposed fee change is based on a recent proposal by
Nasdaq Phlx LLC (``Phlx'') to adopt fees for purge ports. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97825 (June 30, 2023), 88 FR
43405 (July 7, 2023) (SR-Phlx-2023-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://www.miaxglobal.com/markets/us-options/pearl-options/rule-filings at MIAX Pearl's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

I. 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 is proposing to amend the fees for Purge Ports, which
is a function enabling the Exchange's two types of Members ,\5\ Market
Makers \6\ and Electronic Exchange Members \7\ (``EEMs''), to cancel
all open orders or a subset of open orders through a single cancel
message. The Exchange currently provides Members the option to purchase
Purge Ports to assist in their quoting activity. Purge Ports provide
Members with the ability to send purge messages to the Exchange
System.\8\ Purge Ports are not capable of sending or receiving any
other type of messages or information. The use of Purge Ports is
completely optional and no rule or regulation requires that a Market
Maker utilize them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization that
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ The term ``Market Maker'' or ``MM'' means a Member
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in
options contracts traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the
rights and responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of the Exchange
Rules. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange
Rule 100.
    \7\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means the
holder of a Trading Permit who is a Member representing as agent
Public Customer Orders or Non-Customer Orders on the Exchange and
those non-Market Maker Members conducting proprietary trading.
Electronic Exchange Members are deemed ``members'' under the
Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and
Exchange Rule 100.
    \8\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike other options exchanges that charge fees for Purge Ports on
a per port basis,\9\ the Exchange assesses a flat fee of $750 per
month, regardless of the number of Purge Ports. Today, a Market Maker
may request and be allocated two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine to
which it connects and not all Members connect to all Matching Engines.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the fee for Purge Ports to align
more with other exchanges who charge on a per port basis by providing
two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for a monthly flat fee of $600
per month per Matching Engine. The only difference with a per port
structure being is that Members receive two (2) Purge Ports per
Matching Engine for the same proposed monthly fee, rather than be
charged separate fee for each Purge Port. The Exchange proposes to
charge the proposed fee for Purge Ports per Matching Engine, instead on
a per Purge Port basis, due to its system architecture which provides
two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for redundancy purposes. In
addition, the proposed fee would be lower than what other exchanges
charge on a per port basis, notwithstanding that the Exchange is
providing up to two (2) Purge Ports for that same low fee.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Cboe BXZ Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Options Fee Schedule,
Options Logical Port Fees, Purge Ports ($750 per purge port per
month); Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') Options Fee Schedule,
Options Logical Port Fees, Purge Ports ($750 per purge port per
month); Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Fee Schedule ($850 per purge
port per month). See also Nasdaq GEMX, Options 7, Pricing Schedule,
Section 6.C.(3). Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``Nasdaq GEMX'') assesses its
members $1,250 per SQF Purge Port per month, subject to a monthly
cap of $17,500 for SQF Purge Ports and SQF Ports, applicable to
market makers. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97825
(June 30, 2023), 88 FR 43405 (July 7, 2023) (SR-Phlx-2023-28).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to a per port charge, Members would be also able to elect
the number of Matching Engines they connect to and pay the applicable
fee. The Exchange believes the proposed fee provides Members with
flexibility to control their Purge Ports costs based on the number of
Matching Engines it elects to connect to.
* * * * *
    A logical port represents a port established by the Exchange within
the Exchange's system for trading and billing purposes. Each logical
port grants a Member the ability to accomplish a specific function,
such as order entry, order cancellation, access to execution reports,
and other administrative information.
    Purge Ports are designed to assist Members \11\ in the management
of, and risk control over, their orders, particularly if the firm is
dealing with a large number of securities. For example, if a Market
Maker detects market indications that may influence the execution
potential of their orders, the Market Maker may use Purge Ports to
reduce uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all orders in a number
of securities. This allows Members to seamlessly avoid unintended
executions, while continuing to evaluate the market, their positions,
and their risk levels. Purge Ports are used by Members that conduct
business activity that exposes them to a large amount of risk across a
number of securities. Purge Ports enable Members to cancel all open
orders, or a subset of open orders through a single cancel message. The
Exchange notes that Purge Ports increase efficiency of already existing
functionality enabling the cancellation of orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Members seeking to become registered as a Market Maker must
comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter VI of the
Exchange's Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates highly performant systems with significant
throughput and determinism which allows participants to enter, update
and cancel orders at high rates. Members may currently cancel
individual orders through the existing functionality, such as through
the use of a mass cancel message by which a Market Maker may request
that the Exchange remove all or a subset of its quotations and block
all or a subset of its new inbound quotations.\12\ As a result, Members
can currently cancel orders in rapid succession across their existing
logical ports \13\ or through a single cancel message, all open orders
or a subset of open orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Exchange Rule 519C(a) and (b).
    \13\ Current Exchange port functionality supports cancelation
rates that exceed one thousand messages per second and the
Exchange's research indicates that certain market participants rely
on such functionality and at times utilize such cancelation rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Members may also use cancel-on-disconnect control when
they experience a disruption in connection to the Exchange to
automatically cancel all orders, as configured or instructed by the
Member or Market Maker.\14\ In addition, the Exchange already provides
similar ability to mass cancel orders through the Exchange's risk
controls, which are offered at no charge that enables Members to
establish pre-determined levels of risk exposure, and can be used to
cancel all open orders.\15\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
Purge Ports provide an efficient option as an alternative to already
available services and enhance the Participant's ability to manage
their risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Rule 516C(c).
    \15\ See Exchange Rule 532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that market participants benefit from a
dedicated purge mechanism for specific Members and to the market as a
whole. Members will have the benefit of efficient risk management and
purge tools. The market will benefit from potential increased quoting
and liquidity as Members may use Purge Ports to manage their risk more
robustly. Only Members that request Purge Ports would be subject to the
proposed fees, and other Members can continue to operate in exactly the
same manner as they do today without dedicated Purge Ports,

but with the additional purging capabilities described above.
Implementation Date
    The proposed fees will be effective October 1, 2023.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it
is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes that its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \18\ because it
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote
just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because offering
Members optional service and flexible fee structures promotes choice,
flexibility, efficiency, and competition. The Exchange believes Purge
Ports enhance Members' ability to manage orders, which would, in turn,
improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that Purge Ports foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities because designating Purge Ports for purge messages may
encourage better use of such ports. This may, concurrent with the ports
that carry orders and other information necessary for market making
activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use
of Members' resources. Similar connectivity and functionality is
offered by options exchanges, including the Exchange's own affiliated
options exchanges, and other equities exchanges.\19\ The Exchange
believes that proper risk management, including the ability to
efficiently cancel multiple orders quickly when necessary, is similarly
valuable to firms that trade in the equities market, including Members
that have heightened quoting obligations that are not applicable to
other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra notes 4 and 10. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 77613 (April 13, 2016), 81 FR 23023 (April 19, 2016).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 79956 (February 3,
2017), 82 FR 10102 (February 9, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-05); 79957
(February 3, 2017), 82 FR 10070 (February 9, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-
2017-07); 83201 (May 9, 2018), 83 FR 22546 (May 15, 2018) (SR-C2-
2018-006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Purge Ports do not relieve Members of their quoting obligations or
firm quote obligations under Regulation NMS Rule 602.\20\ Specifically,
any interest that is executable against a Member's or Market Maker's
orders that is received by the Exchange prior to the time of the
removal of orders request will automatically execute. Members that
purge their orders will not be relieved of the obligation to provide
continuous two-sided orders on a daily basis, nor will it prohibit the
Exchange from taking disciplinary action against a Market Maker for
failing to meet their continuous quoting obligation each trading
day.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Exchange Rule 604. See also generally Chapter VI of the
Exchange's Rules.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not the only exchange to offer this functionality
and to charge associated fees.\22\ The Exchange believes the proposed
fee for Purge Ports is reasonable because it is lower than that
currently charged by other exchanges. For example, BZX and EDGX charge
a fee of $750 per purge port per month, Cboe charges $850 per purge
port per month, Nasdaq GEMX assesses its members $1,250 per SQF Purge
Port per month, subject to a monthly cap of $17,500 for SQF Purge Ports
and SQF Ports.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra notes 4 and 10.
    \23\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge $600 per month for
Purge Ports as such ports represent targeted enhancement of technology
and were specially developed to allow for the sending of a single
message to cancel multiple orders, thereby assisting firms in
effectively managing risk. The Exchange also believes that a Member
that chooses to utilize Purge Ports may, in the future, reduce their
need for additional ports by consolidating cancel messages to the Purge
Port and thus freeing up some capacity of the existing logical ports
and, therefore, allowing for increased message traffic without paying
for additional logical ports. Purge Ports provide the ability to cancel
multiple orders across multiple ports with less messaging from the
firms using the ports and therefore may create efficiencies for firms
and provide a more economical solution to their risk management needs.
In addition, Purge Port requests may cancel orders submitted over
numerous ports and contain added functionality to purge only a subset
of these orders. Effective risk management is important both for
individual market participants that choose to utilize risk features
provided by the Exchange, as well as for the market in general. As a
result, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to charge fees for
such functionality as doing so aids in the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market.
    The Exchange also believes that its ability to set fees for Purge
Ports is subject to significant substitution-based forces because
Members are able to rely on currently available services both free and
those they receive when using existing trading protocols. If the value
of the efficiency introduced through the Purge Port functionality is
not worth the proposed fees, Members will simply continue to rely on
the existing functionality and not pay for Purge Ports. In that regard,
Members may currently cancel individual orders through the existing
functionality, such as through the use of a mass cancel message by
which a Market Maker may request that the Exchange remove all or a
subset of its quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound
quotations. Members already can also cancel orders individually and by
utilizing Exchange protocols that allow them to develop proprietary
systems that can send cancel messages at a high rate.\24\ In addition,
the Exchange already provides similar ability to mass cancel orders
through the Exchange's risk controls, which are offered at no charge
that enables Members to establish pre-determined levels of risk
exposure, and can be used to cancel all open orders.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Current Exchange port functionality supports cancelation
rates that exceed one thousand messages per second and the
Exchange's research indicates that certain Participants rely on such
functionality and at times utilize such cancelation rates.
    \25\ See Exchange Rule 532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Members may use cancel-on-disconnect control when they
experience a disruption in connection to the Exchange to immediately
cancel all pending Exchange.\26\ Finally, this existing purging
functionality will allow Participants to achieve essentially the same
outcome in canceling orders as they would by utilizing the Purge Ports.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed Purge Ports fee is
reasonable because it is related to the efficiency of Purge Ports
related to other means and services already available which are either
free or already a part of a fee assessed to the Participant's for
existing connectivity. Accordingly, because Purge Ports provide
additional optional functionality, excessive fees would simply serve to
reduce or

eliminate demand for this optional product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Exchange Rule 516C(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that offering Purge Ports at the
Matching Engine level promotes risk management across the industry, and
thereby facilitates investor protection. Some market participants, in
particular the larger firms, could and do build similar risk
functionality (as described above) in their trading systems that permit
the flexible cancellation of orders entered on the Exchange at a high
rate. Offering Matching Engine level protections ensures that such
functionality is widely available to all firms, including smaller firms
that may otherwise not be willing to incur the costs and development
work necessary to support their own customized mass cancel
functionality.
    As noted above, the Exchange is not the only exchange to offer
dedicated Purge Ports, and the proposed rate is lower than that charged
by other exchanges for similar functionality. The Exchange also
believes that moving to a per Matching Engine fee is reasonable due to
the Exchange's architecture that provides it the ability to provide two
(2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for a fee that would still be lower
than other exchanges that charge on a per port basis. Generally
speaking, restricting the Exchange's ability to charge fees for these
services discourages innovation and competition. Specifically in this
case, the Exchange's inability to offer similar services to those
offered by other exchanges, and charge reasonable and equitable fees
for such services, would put the Exchange at a significant competitive
disadvantage and, therefore, serve to restrict competition in the
market--especially when other exchanges assess comparable fees higher
than those proposed by the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Purge Port fees are
equitable because the proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary as
they relate solely to optional risk management functionality.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee
schedule are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply
uniformly to all Members that choose to use the optional Purge Ports.
Purge Ports are completely voluntary and, as they relate solely to
optional risk management functionality, no Market Maker is required or
under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Members that
voluntarily select this service option will be charged the same amount
for the same services. All Members have the option to select any
connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Members with
regard to the fees charged for the services offered by the Exchange.

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. Purge Ports are completely
voluntary and are available to all Members on an equal basis at the
same cost. While the Exchange believes that Purge Ports provide a
valuable service, Members can choose to purchase, or not purchase,
these ports based on their own determination of the value and their
business needs. No Members is required or under any regulatory
obligation to utilize Purge Ports. Accordingly, the Exchange believes
that Purge Ports offer appropriate risk management functionality to
firms that trade on the Exchange without imposing an unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on competition.
    Furthermore, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
environment, and its ability to price the Purge Ports is constrained by
competition among exchanges that offer similar functionality. As
discussed, there are currently a number of similar offers available to
market participants for higher fees at other exchanges. Proposing fees
that are excessively higher than established fees for similar
functionality would simply serve to reduce demand for the Purge Ports,
which as discussed, market participants are under no obligation to
utilize. It could also cause firms to shift trading to other exchanges
that offer similar functionality at a lower costs, adversely impacting
the overall trading on the Exchange and reducing market share. In this
competitive environment, potential purchasers are free to choose which,
if any, similar product to purchase to satisfy their need for risk
management. As a result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule
change permits fair competition among national securities exchanges.
    The Exchange also does not believe the proposal would cause any
unnecessary or in appropriate burden on intermarket competition as
other exchanges are free to introduce their own purge port
functionality and lower their prices to better compete with the
Exchange's offering. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule
change would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on
intramarket competition. Particularly, the proposal would apply
uniformly to any market participant, in that it does not differentiate
between Members. The proposal would allow any interested Members to
purchase Purge Port functionality based on their business needs.

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,\27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \28\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-PEARL-2023-52 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-PEARL-2023-52. 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 (https://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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to file number SR-PEARL-2023-52 and should be submitted on
or before November 8, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22928 Filed 10-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76149-76150]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0050]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt six individuals from
the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have
``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or
any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on October 16, 2020. The
exemptions expire on October 16, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0050 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On September 16, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt
of applications from six individuals requesting an exemption from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and
requested comments from the public (85 FR 57926). The public comment
period ended on October 16, 2020, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners (MEs) in determining whether
drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in Appendix A to Part 391--
Medical Advisory Criteria, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a

level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA
grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align
with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel.
The Agency conducted an individualized assessment of each applicant's
medical information, including the root cause of the respective
seizure(s) and medical information about the applicant's seizure
history, the length of time that has elapsed since the individual's
last seizure, the stability of each individual's treatment regimen and
the duration of time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition,
the Agency reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to
the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of
seizure and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in
the Motor Carrier Management Information System. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. A summary of each applicant's seizure history was
discussed in the September 16, 2020, Federal Register notice (85 FR
57926) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    These six applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 12 to
38 years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable
medication treatment regimen for the last 2 years. In each case, the
applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and
supports the ability to drive commercially.
    The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in Sec.
391.41(b)(8) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment
during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual
reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of
treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each
driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified ME, as
defined by Sec.  390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the six exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorder
prohibition, Sec.  391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited
above:

Robert S. Kessler (KS)
Thomas J. Kline (PA)
Jeffrey T. Lang (PA)
Ty Martin (WV)
Rick S. Morrison (NC)
Darrel Rinder (CA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-26160 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66175-66178]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1058; Product Identifier 2018-CE-051-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-6, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2,
PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/
B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, PC-6/C1-H2, PC-6-H1, and PC-6-H2 airplanes. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify

and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI
describes the unsafe condition as sheared or missing rivets on the
horizontal stabilizer hinge bracket assemblies. We are issuing this
proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 11,
2019.

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 proposed AD, contact
PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992,
CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41
619 67 73; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://
www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review 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>.

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-
1058; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone
(800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-1058;
Product Identifier 2018-CE-051-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2018-0217, dated October 10, 2018 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    During a routine inspection, the rivets of the hinge bracket
assemblies on a Pilatus PC-6 were found to be sheared or missing.
Investigation results identified that this was most likely due to
application of too much force to the ends of the horizontal
stabilizer during ground handling.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the primary horizontal stabilizer load path and
consequent separation of the horizontal stabilizer, possibly
resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd
issued the SB [service bulletin] to provide applicable inspection
instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection of the affected parts and the horizontal stabilizer
front spar attachment area and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD
also requires, before installation, inspection of, and, depending on
findings, corrective action(s) on, affected parts held as spare.

    The amount of force to the ends of the horizontal stabilizer cannot
be quantified; however, fleet experience shows that repetitive pushing
or pulling on the horizontal stabilizer to move the airplane on the
ground can overload the rivets. Although a root cause could not be
determined, due to the severity of separation of a horizontal
stabilizer, EASA determined that the corrective actions should be
required for other airplanes of the same type design.
    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. had previously considered the small size of
the original ``DO NOT PUSH'' markings and the significant chance of the
markings being over-sprayed during a respray. As a result, Pilatus
Aircraft Ltd. issued a service bulletin to specify replacing the
smaller markings with new, larger placards. The FAA proposes to require
these placards in the NPRM.
    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
1058.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has issued PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 55-004,
dated July 2, 2018. The service information contains procedures for
inspecting the left-hand and right-hand horizontal stabilizer hinge
bracket assemblies and, if any discrepancies are found, repairing or
replacing any damaged rivets and screws. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has also
issued PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 55-002, Revision. No. 1, dated
February 18, 2016. This service information contains procedures for
inspecting and repairing the horizontal stabilizer attachment hardware
and installing four ``DO NOT PUSH'' placards. 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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed 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 proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.
    We have reviewed the MCAI and, in general, agree with the
substance. The MCAI AD does not require installing ``DO NOT PUSH''
placards. We have added that requirement to this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 30 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 9 work-hours per
product to

comply with the inspection and placard requirements of this proposed
AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would
cost about $200 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
inspection and placard requirements on U.S. operators to be $28,950, or
$965 per product.
    In addition, we estimate the following to do any necessary follow-
on actions: Each rivet replacement would take 2 work-hours, fastener
replacement would take 3 work-hours, one hinge bracket assembly
replacement would take 9 work-hours, and two hinge bracket assembly
replacements would take 15 work-hours. The total estimated cost of
parts would be $10,000. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need replacement.

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2018-1058; Product Identifier
2018-CE-051-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 11, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-6, PC-6/350,
PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2,
PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, PC-6/C1-H2, PC-6-H1,
PC-6-H2 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c): These airplanes may also be identified
as Fairchild Republic Company airplanes, Fairchild Industries
airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller
Corporation airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as sheared or
missing rivets on the horizontal stabilizer hinge bracket
assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the primary
horizontal stabilizer load path, which could lead to separation of
the horizontal stabilizer and result in loss of control of the
airplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2).
    (1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first:
    (i) Inspect the left-hand and the right-hand horizontal
stabilizer hinge bracket assemblies for cracks, loose screws and
rivets, sheared rivets, missing rivets, and looseness of the
electrical bonding strap, and inspect the top and bottom screws at
each hinge bracket. Repair or replace any parts with discrepancies
before further flight. You must do the actions required by this
paragraph by following sections C through G of the Accomplishment
Instructions--Part 1--On Aircraft in Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6
Service Bulletin No. 55-004, dated July 2, 2018.
    (ii) Install four ``DO NOT PUSH'' placards, part number
<IP_ADDRESS>7 or <IP_ADDRESS>8, on the horizontal stabilizer by
following section G of the Accomplishment Instructions--Aircraft in
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6 Service Bulletin No. 55-002, Revision.
No. 1, dated February 18, 2016.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a
horizontal stabilizer on any airplane unless it has been inspected
as specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD and found to be free
of discrepancies or all discrepancies have been repaired or
replaced.

(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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-
4090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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
instead be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA).

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD No. 2018-0217,
dated October 10, 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-2018-1058. For service information
related to this AD, contact PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer
Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland;
phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://www.pilatus-
aircraft.com. You may review 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>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 17, 2018.
Melvin J. Johnson,
Aircraft Certification Service, Deputy Director, Policy and Innovation
Division, AIR-601.
[FR Doc. 2018-27899 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 7641-7642]
[DOCID:fr22fe10-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61507; File No. SR-DTC-2010-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate the Option To
Receive a Physical Certificate From DTC for Unsponsored American
Depositary Receipts That Are Part of the Fast Automated Securities
Transfer Program

February 5, 2010.
    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 January 19, 2010, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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 primarily by DTC. 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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to eliminate the option
to receive a physical certificate from DTC for unsponsored American
Depositary Receipts (``ADRs'') that are a part of DTC's Fast Automated
Securities Transfer Program (``FAST'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    An ADR is a security that trades in the United States but
represents a specified number of shares in a foreign corporation. ADRs
are issued in the U.S. by depositary banks. An ADR issuance is
``unsponsored'' when there is no formal agreement between the
depositary bank(s) issuing the shares and the foreign company whose
underlying shares are the basis for the ADR. Because there is no
agreement between the issuer and a specific depositary, more than one
depositary can be involved in the issuance and cancellation of the ADR
in an unsponsored program. Unsponsored ADRs trade in the over-the-
counter market.
    Currently, in order to deposit an unsponsored ADR at DTC, a
depositary bank that is also a DTC participant will have its transfer
agent create a certificate for the new issue ADR, which is then
deposited at DTC by the depositary bank. In an effort to eliminate some
of the risks and costs related to the processing of securities
certificates,\4\ DTC recently made unsponsored ADRs eligible for DTC's
Fast Automated Securities Transfer Program (``FAST'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The costs and risks associated with physical certificates
include, among other things, those associated with safekeeping,
transfer, shipping, messengers, and insurance costs.
    \5\ FAST was designed to eliminate some of the risks and costs
related to the creation, movement, processing, and storage of
securities certificates. Under the FAST Program, FAST transfer
agents hold FAST eligible securities in the name of Cede & Co. in
custody and for the benefit of DTC. As additional securities are
deposited or withdrawn from DTC, the FAST transfer agents adjust the
size of DTC's position as appropriate and electronically confirm
these changes with DTC. For more information relating to FAST, see
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 13342 (March 8, 1977) [File No.
SR-DTC-76-3]; 14997 (July 26, 1978) [File No. SR-DTC-78-11]; 21401
(October 16, 1984) [File No. SR-DTC-84-8]; 31941 (March 3, 1993)
[SR-DTC-92-15]; and 46956 (December 6, 2002) [File No. SR-DTC-2002-
15].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC's withdrawal-by-transfer (``WT'') service allows participants
to instruct DTC to have securities assets which are held in the
participant's DTC account reregistered in the name of the

participant, an investor, or a third party. Upon receipt of a WT
instruction from a participant, DTC either sends a certificate to the
transfer agent for reregistration in the name of the person or entity
identified in the WT instruction or instructs the transfer agent to
debit DTC's FAST position and to issue securities in the name of the
person or entity identified in the WT instruction.
    As part of DTC's response to an industry effort to reduce the
number of securities certificates in the U.S. market (sometimes
referred to as ``dematerialization''),\6\ DTC initiated a program of
steadily increasing its fees for WTs and other withdrawals to create
strong disincentives for the use of physical certificates. Consistent
with that program, DTC is now proposing to eliminate a participant's
ability to use the WT service to have physical certificates issued for
unsponsored ADRs that are a part of the FAST Program. DTC believes that
this modification of its WT service reaffirms its goals of reducing the
number of securities certificates in the U.S. markets. DTC participants
will continue to have the ability to request a physical certificate
directly from the transfer agent by using the DWAC process.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information on dematerialization, see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 49405 (March 11, 2004), 69 FR 12922 (March
18, 2004) ([File No. S7-13-04]).
    \7\ DWAC is a method of electronically transferring shares
between a DTC Participant and the transfer agent for the shares. For
more information about the DWAC service, see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 30283 (January 23, 1992), 56 FR 59307 (November 18,
1991) (SR-DTC-91-16) (order granting approval of the DWAC service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and the rules
and regulations thereunder because it modifies a DTC service in order
to reduce the use of physical certificates and the inherent risks
associated with the use of physical certificates and as such
facilitates the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by DTC.

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

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2010-03 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-DTC-2010-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and
on DTC's Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/ rule_
filings/2010/dtc/2010-03.pdf. 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-DTC-2010-03 and should be submitted on or before March
15, 2010.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3329 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P