[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3643-3649]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71303; File No. SR-BATS-2014-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

January 15, 2014.
    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 January 2, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
are effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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 parts 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 modify the ``Options Pricing'' section of
its fee schedule effective immediately, in order to: (i) Modify the
rebates provided by the Exchange for Customer \6\ orders that add
liquidity to the Exchange's options platform (``BATS Options'') in
options classes subject to the penny pilot program as described below
(``Penny Pilot Securities'');\7\ (ii) modify the fees charged by the
Exchange for Customer orders that remove liquidity from BATS Options in
Penny Pilot Securities; (iii) modify the rebates provided by the
Exchange for Professional,\8\ Firm, and Market Maker \9\ orders that
add liquidity to BATS Options in Penny Pilot Securities; (iv) modify
the fees charged by the Exchange for Professional, Firm, and Market
Maker orders that remove liquidity from BATS Options in Penny Pilot
Securities; (v) modify the rebates provided by the Exchange for
Customer orders that add liquidity to BATS Options in non-Penny Pilot
Securities; (vi) modify the fees charged by the Exchange for Customer
orders that remove liquidity from BATS Options in non-Penny Pilot
Securities; (vii) modify the rebates provided by the Exchange for
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that add liquidity to BATS
Options in non-Penny Pilot Securities; (viii) modify the fees charged
by the Exchange for Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that
remove

liquidity from BATS Options in non-Penny Pilot Securities; (ix) modify
the tier thresholds and adjust the rebates provided by the Exchange
under the BATS Options NBBO Setter Program;\10\ (x) modify the tier
thresholds and adjust the rebates provided by the Exchange under the
Quoting Incentive Program (``QIP'').\11\ In conjunction with proposals
(i) through (iv) and (ix) listed above, the Exchange is proposing to
eliminate the ``Grow with Us'' rebates and fees and the definitions and
footnotes associated therewith.\12\ In addition to these changes, the
Exchange proposes to make several minor changes to the fee schedule to
achieve additional consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, a ``Customer''
order is any transaction identified by a Member for clearing in the
Customer range at the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''), except
for those designated as ``Professional''.
    \7\ The Exchange currently charges different fees and provides
different rebates depending on whether an options class is an
options class that qualifies as a Penny Pilot Security pursuant to
Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01 or is a non-penny
options class.
    \8\ The term ``Professional'' is defined in Exchange Rule 16.1
to mean any person or entity that (A) is not a broker or dealer in
securities, and (B) places more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s).
    \9\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, the terms
``Firm'' and ``Market Maker'' apply to any transaction identified by
a member for clearing in the Firm or Market Maker range,
respectively, at the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'').
    \10\ The NBBO Setter Program is a program that provides
additional rebates for executions resulting from orders that add
liquidity that set either the national best bid (``NBB'') or
national best offer (``NBO'').
    \11\ The QIP is a program designed to enhance market quality by
incentivizing market Makers to participate on BATS Options by
providing supplemental rebates for executed orders that add
liquidity where the Market Maker has an average daily trading volume
that exceeds certain thresholds.
    \12\ The ``Grow with Us'' pricing constitutes enhanced rebates
and fees for Members that increase their trading activity on BATS
Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Customer Rebates for Adding Liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities
    The Exchange currently provides rebates for Customer orders that
add liquidity to the BATS Options order book in Penny Pilot Securities
pursuant to a tiered pricing structure, as described below. The
Exchange proposes to modify this tiered pricing structure and the
rebates associated therewith as well as eliminate the rebates
associated with the Grow with Us pricing program.
    The Exchange currently offers the following rebates per contract
for a Customer order that adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities to
the BATS Options order book: (i) $0.30 where the Member does not
qualify for any additional rebates as described below; (ii) $0.31 where
the Member has an ADV \13\ less than 0.25% of average TCV \14\ and also
shows a minimum of 10 basis points TCV improvement over their previous
High Water Mark; \15\ (iii) $0.43 where the Member has an ADV equal to
or greater than 0.25% of average TCV but less than 0.75% of average
TCV; (iv) $0.44 where the Member has an ADV equal to or greater than
0.25% of average TCV but less than 0.75% of average TCV and also shows
a minimum of 10 basis points TCV improvement over their previous High
Water Mark; (v) $0.46 where the Member has an ADV equal to or greater
than 0.75% of average TCV but less than 1.25% of average TCV; (vi)
$0.47 where the Member has an ADV equal to or greater than 0.75% of
average TCV but less than 1.25% of average TCV and also shows a minimum
of 10 basis points TCV improvement over their previous High Water Mark;
and (vii) $0.47 where the Member has an ADV equal to or greater than
1.25% of average TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, ADV is average
daily volume calculated as the number of contracts added or removed,
combined, per day on a monthly basis. The fee schedule also provides
that routed contracts are not included in ADV calculation.
    \14\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, TCV is total
consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all
exchanges to the consolidated transaction reporting plan for the
month for which the fees apply.
    \15\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, High Water Mark
is the greater of a Member's Q4 2011 TCV or a Member's highest
monthly TCV on BATS Options thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to adjust the thresholds required to meet
the tiers for higher rebates, to simplify the rebate structure by
eliminating one tier, to eliminate the Grow with Us rebates, and to
increase the rebates associated with each tier such that all Members
will receive higher rebates than under the current rebate structure.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to increase the minimum ADV as
a percentage of average TCV necessary to qualify for an increased
rebate from 0.25% to 0.30%. The Exchange is also proposing to eliminate
the third rebate tier for Members that have an ADV as a percentage of
average TCV between 0.25% to 0.75%. The Exchange is proposing to reduce
the threshold of ADV as a percentage of average TCV at which Members
will receive the highest rebate from 1.25% to 1.00%. Further, the
Exchange is proposing to amend the rebates per contract for Customer
orders that add liquidity to the BATS Options order book in Penny Pilot
Securities as follows: (i) To increase the rebate from $0.30 to $0.45
where the Member does not qualify for a higher rebate based on the
Member's ADV; (ii) to provide a rebate of $0.48 where the Member has an
ADV equal to or greater than 0.30% of average TCV but less than 1.00%
of average TCV; and (iii) to provide a rebate of $0.50 where the Member
has an ADV equal to or greater than 1.00% of average TCV.
(ii) Customer Fees for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities
    The Exchange currently charges fees for Customer orders that remove
liquidity from the BATS Options order book in Penny Pilot Securities
pursuant to a tiered pricing structure, as described below. The
Exchange proposes to modify this tiered pricing structure and the fees
associated therewith as well as eliminate the fees associated with the
Grow with Us pricing program.
    The Exchange currently charges the following fees per contract for
a Customer order that adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities to the
BATS Options order book: (i) $0.45 for an order that does not qualify
for a lower fee; (ii) $0.44 where a Member has an ADV less than 0.25%
of average TCV and also shows a minimum of 10 basis points TCV
improvement over their previous High Water Mark; (iii) $0.44 where a
Member has an ADV equal to or greater than 0.25% of average TCV but
less than 0.75% of average TCV; (iv) $0.43 where a Member has an ADV
equal to or greater than 0.25% of average TCV but less than 0.75% of
average TCV and also shows a minimum of 10 basis points TCV improvement
over their previous High Water Mark; (v) $0.43 where a Member has an
ADV equal to or greater than 0.75% of average TCV but less than 1.25%
of average TCV; (vi) $0.42 where a Member has an ADV equal to or
greater than 0.75% of average TCV but less than 1.25% of average TCV
and also shows a minimum of 10 basis points TCV improvement over their
previous High Water Mark; and (vii) $0.42 where a Member has an ADV
equal to or greater than 1.25% of average TCV.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate volume tiers, to eliminate the
Grow with Us fees, and to modify the fees charged for Customer orders
that remove liquidity from the BATS Options order book in Penny Pilot
Securities. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to charge $0.47 per
contract for all Customer orders that remove liquidity from the BATS
Options order book.
(iii) Non-Customer Rebates for Adding Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Securities
    The Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.25 per contract for
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that add liquidity to the
BATS Options order book in Penny Pilot Securities and are removed by a
Customer order. The Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.35 per
contract for Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that add
liquidity to the BATS Options order book in Penny Pilot Securities and
are removed by a Professional, Firm, or Market Maker order.
    In order to further incentivize liquidity on BATS Options, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the distinction in pricing based on the

capacity of the order that removes the order and to increase the rebate
for Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that add liquidity to
the BATS Options order book. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
offer a $0.40 rebate per contract for all Professional, Firm, or Market
Maker orders that add liquidity to the BATS Options order book
regardless of the capacity of the order that removes such liquidity.
(iv) Non-Customer Fees for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Securities
    The Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.47 per contract for
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that remove liquidity from
BATS Options in Penny Pilot Securities where the Member does not
qualify for a lower charge based on TCV improvement. The Exchange
currently charges a fee of $0.46 per contract for Professional, Firm,
and Market Maker orders that remove liquidity from BATS Options in
Penny Pilot Securities where the Member shows a minimum of 10 basis
points of TCV improvement over their previous High Water Mark.
    For Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that remove
liquidity from BATS Options in Penny Pilot Securities, the Exchange is
proposing to adjust fees, to eliminate the Grow with Us incentive, and
to offer a lower fee for Members that have an ADV equal to or greater
than 1.00% of average TCV.
    Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to increase its fees for
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that remove liquidity from
BATS Options in Penny Pilot Securities where the Member does not
qualify for a lower fee from $0.47 per contract to $0.48 per contract.
The Exchange also proposes to eliminate fees for Professional, Firm,
and Market Maker orders that remove liquidity from BATS Options in
Penny Pilot Securities where the Member qualifies for Grow with Us
pricing based on TCV improvement. Finally, the Exchange is proposing to
charge $0.47 per contract for a Professional, Firm, or Market Maker
order that removes liquidity from the BATS Options order book where the
Member has an ADV equal to or greater than 1.00% of average TCV.
(v) Customer Rebates for Adding Liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities
    The Exchange currently offers a $0.80 rebate per contract for
Customer orders that add liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities. The
Exchange is proposing to increase the rebate for Customer orders that
add liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities from $0.80 to $0.85 per
contract.
(vi) Customer Fees for Removing Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Securities
    The Exchange currently charges $0.75 per contract for Customer
orders that remove liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities. The
Exchange is proposing to increase the fee for Customer orders that
remove liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities from $0.75 to $0.80 per
contract.
(vii) Non-Customer Rebates for Adding Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot
Securities
    The Exchange currently offers a $0.60 rebate per contract for
Professional, Firm, or Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Non-
Penny Pilot Securities. The Exchange is proposing to increase the
rebate for Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that add
liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities from $0.60 to $0.65 per
contract.
(viii) Non-Customer Fees for Removing Liquidity in non-Penny Pilot
Securities
    The Exchange currently charges $0.84 per contract for Professional,
Firm, and Market Maker orders that remove liquidity in non-Penny Pilot
Securities. The Exchange is proposing to increase the fee for
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that remove liquidity in
non-Penny Pilot Securities from $0.84 to $0.89 per contract.
(ix) NBBO Setter Program Rebates
    The Exchange's NBBO Setter Program is a program intended to
incentivize aggressive quoting on BATS Options by providing an
additional rebate upon execution for all orders that add liquidity that
set either the NBB or NBO (the ``NBBO Setter Rebate''),\16\ subject to
certain volume requirements. Orders that qualify for the NBBO Setter
Rebate receive the following rebates: $0.03 additional rebate per
contract rebate for executions of Professional, Firm and Market Maker
orders that qualify for the NBBO Setter Rebate by Members with an ADV
equal to or greater than 0.25% of average TCV but less than 0.75% of
average TCV; $0.06 additional rebate per contract for qualifying
executions of Professional, Firm or Market Maker orders by Members with
an ADV equal to or greater than 0.75% of average TCV but less than
1.25% of average TCV; and an additional $0.10 per contract for
qualifying executions of Professional, Firm and Market Maker orders by
Members with an ADV equal to or greater than 1.25% of average TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ An order that is entered at the most aggressive price both
on the BATS Options book and according to then current OPRA data
will be determined to have set the NBB or NBO for purposes of the
NBBO Setter Rebate without regard to whether a more aggressive order
is entered prior to the original order being executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also applies its Grow with Us pricing program to the
lower two tiers of the NBBO Setter Rebate. Accordingly, any Member that
qualifies for the lower NBBO Setter Program tier applicable to Members
with an ADV equal to or greater than 0.25% of average TCV but not the
0.75% of average TCV tier that achieves at least a 10 basis point
increase over its previous High Water Mark is provided a NBBO Setter
Rebate of $0.05 per contract for qualifying executions. Similarly, any
Member that qualifies for the middle NBBO Setter tier applicable to
Members with an ADV equal to or greater than 0.75% of average TCV but
less than 1.25% of average TCV that achieves at least a 10 basis point
increase over its previous High Water Mark is provided a NBBO Setter
Rebate of $0.08 per contract for qualifying executions. The highest
NBBO Setter Program tier applicable to Members with an ADV equal to or
greater than 1.25% of average TCV is not subject to the Grow with Us
pricing program.
    The Exchange proposes to simplify the NBBO Setter Program by
eliminating the middle volume tier and ceasing to apply the Grow with
Us pricing program to the NBBO Setter Program, thus leaving only two
separate rebates for qualifying transactions. Further, the Exchange is
proposing to adjust the thresholds required to qualify for both the
bottom and top tier and to lower the rebates provided for each tier.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the lower threshold
to qualify for the lowest tier of the NBBO Setter Program from an ADV
of 0.25% of average TCV to an ADV of 0.30% of average TCV. Further, the
Exchange is proposing to raise the upper threshold for the lower tier
from an ADV of 0.75% of average TCV to an ADV of 1.00% of average TCV.
The Exchange is also proposing to decrease the threshold at which
Members will qualify for the top tier of the NBBO Setter Program from
an ADV of 1.25% of average TCV to 1.00% of average TCV. As noted above,
the Exchange is thus eliminating any middle tier applicable to the NBBO
Setter Program.
    The Exchange proposes to provide a NBBO Setter Rebate of $0.02 per
contract for qualifying executions of Professional, Firm, and Market
Maker orders by any Member that qualifies for the lower tier applicable
to Members with an ADV equal to or greater than 0.30% of average TCV
but less than 1.00% of average TCV. The Exchange also proposes to
provide a NBBO Setter Rebate of $0.04 per contract for

qualifying executions of Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders by
any Member that qualifies for the higher tier applicable to Members
with an ADV equal to or greater than 1.00% of average TCV. The changes
proposed above, including the proposed rebates and elimination of Grow
with Us incentives, represent a decrease of potential NBBO Setter
Rebates that can be achieved by Members.
(x) QIP Rebates
    The Exchange is proposing to modify the tier thresholds and adjust
the rebates provided under the QIP. Currently, the Exchange offers an
additional rebate per contract for an order that adds liquidity to the
BATS Options order book in options classes in which a Member is Market
Maker registered on BATS Options pursuant to Rule 22.2 as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Professional/
  ADV of BATS options registered market      Customer      firm/market
                  maker                                       maker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADV less than 0.25% TCV..................         0.01              0.05
ADV equal to or greater than 0.25% but            0.03              0.05
 less than 0.75% TCV.....................
ADV equal to or greater than 0.75% but            0.03              0.06
 less than 1.25% TCV.....................
ADV equal to or greater than 1.25% TCV...         0.03              0.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the lowest tier of QIP such that
a Member must at least achieve an ADV of 0.30% of average TCV in order
to qualify for an additional rebate. The Exchange also proposes to
increase the lower threshold to qualify for the lowest QIP tier from an
ADV of 0.25% of average TCV to an ADV of 0.30% of average TCV and to
increase the upper threshold from 0.75% to 1.00%. The Exchange is also
proposing to lower the threshold for the upper QIP tier from an ADV of
1.25% of average TCV to an ADV of 1.00% of average TCV. In conjunction
with these proposed threshold adjustments, the Exchange is also
proposing to eliminate the middle tier that currently covers a Member
with an ADV as a percentage of TCV equal to or greater than 0.75%, but
less than 1.25%. The Exchange is also proposing to remove Customer
orders from participation in the QIP. Finally, the Exchange is
proposing to modify the QIP by providing qualifying Professional, Firm,
and Market Maker orders with QIP rebates, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Professional/
      ADV of BATS options registered market maker          firm/market
                                                              maker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADV equal to or greater than 0.30% but less than 1.00%             $0.02
 TCV..................................................
ADV equal to or greater than 1.00% TCV................              0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes proposed above, including the proposed rebates and
elimination of QIP incentives for Customer orders, represent a decrease
of potential additional QIP rebates that can be achieved by Members.
Additional Changes
    In addition to the proposals set forth above, the Exchange proposes
various minor additional changes. In conjunction with the elimination
of Grow with Us pricing incentives, the Exchange proposes to eliminate
the definition of High Water Mark, which is only applicable to Grow
with Us pricing, and to reserve for future use footnote 4 of the fee
schedule, which references Grow with Us pricing. Finally, in the
section regarding Customer rebates for added liquidity in Penny Pilot
Securities the Exchange proposes to make changes to ensure consistent
capitalization and references to Member ADV and to change one reference
of adding liquidity ``from'' the Exchange to adding liquidity ``to''
the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\17\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\18\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones maintained by BATS
Options, and as amended by this proposal, have been widely adopted in
the cash equities markets, and are equitable because they are open to
all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or
discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's
market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such
as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and
introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume
discovery processes. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure and
incentives are not unfairly discriminatory because they are consistent
with the overall goals of enhancing market quality. Similarly, the
Exchange believes that continuing to base its tiered fee structure on
overall TCV, rather than a static number of contracts irrespective of
overall volume in the options industry, is a fair and equitable
approach to pricing. The Exchange notes that while certain thresholds
to meet Exchange tiers are increasing (i.e., from ADV of 0.25% of
average TCV to ADV of 0.30% of average TCV, and for those qualifying
for an intermediate tier based on ADV and/or applicable Grow with Us
incentives) the Exchange has increased its base rebates and has also
reduced the level of ADV needed to qualify for the top tier from 1.25%
of average TCV to 1% of average TCV.
    As explained above, while the Exchange is maintaining a tiered
pricing structure with respect to certain fees and rebates, the
Exchange is also proposing to eliminate considerable variability with
respect to its pricing structure. The Exchange believes that this
simplification will benefit Members by providing more predictable fees
and rebates when trading on the Exchange.
    Despite the increases in fees for all orders that remove liquidity
(Customer, Professional, Firm and Market Maker orders) in both Penny
Pilot Securities and non-Penny Pilot Securities, the Exchange believes
that its proposed fee structure is reasonable as the Exchange's fees
remain generally equivalent to

standard fees charged by other markets with similar fee structures,
such as the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``ARCA''). The increase in fees is also reasonable because the
Exchange has also proposed to increase the rebates provided to add
liquidity. Similarly, the Exchange believes that the increases are fair
and equitable because, in addition to increased rebates generally, the
Exchange will continue to offer incentives to receive reduced fees and
enhanced rebates that provide all Members with several different ways
to offset the increase in fees. As noted above, the Exchange believes
that such volume-based tiers are fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory because they are consistent with the
overall goals of enhancing market quality. The proposed increases to
rebates are reasonable in that they will further incentivize Members to
add liquidity to BATS Options and will help to offset proposed
increases in fees. Additional information regarding each of the
proposed changes is set forth below.
    The Exchange's proposed changes to the rebates provided for
Customer orders that add liquidity to the BATS Options order book in
Penny Pilot Securities are reasonable and equitably allocated because
they represent an increase in rebates for all Customer orders submitted
to the Exchange and simplify the Exchange's rebate structure for such
orders. Most significantly, the lowest possible rebate for any Customer
order would be increased by $0.15 per contract. The proposed changes,
including modifications to the Exchange's tiered rebate structure, are
fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory for the reasons
described above with respect to volume-based rebates and fees.
    The Exchange's proposed changes with respect to the fees charged
for Customer orders that remove liquidity from the BATS Options order
book in Penny Pilot Securities are reasonable and equitably allocated
because they will significantly simplify the pricing structure for
executions of Customer orders on the Exchange. Further, the proposed
fees are reasonable because they represent only a modest increase to
fees that can be offset with the substantial increase to rebates for
such orders, as described above. The Exchange further believes that its
fees for Customer orders are reasonable because they are generally
equivalent to standard fees charged by other markets with similar fee
structures, such as NYSE Arca and NOM. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are equitably allocated and not unreasonably
discriminatory because they are as low or lower than the fee to remove
liquidity charged to all other participants on the Exchange and because
the fee applies equally to all Customer orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to modify the rebate provided to non-
Customers that add liquidity to the Exchange in Penny Pilot Securities
is reasonable and equitably allocated because it will simplify and
increase the rebate provided to all Professional, Firm, or Market Maker
orders that add liquidity to the BATS Options order book regardless of
the capacity of the order that removes such liquidity. As such, and
because all Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders will receive
the same rebate (subject to additional incentives, including the NBBO
Setter Program and QIP), the Exchange believes that the proposal is not
unreasonably discriminatory.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase its fees for Professional,
Firm, and Market Maker orders that remove liquidity from BATS Options
in Penny Pilot Securities where the Member does not qualify for a lower
fee is reasonable because it represents only a modest increase to fees
that can be offset with the increase to rebates for such orders, as
described above. The Exchange further believes that its fees for
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders in Penny Pilot Securities
are reasonable because they are generally equivalent to standard fees
charged by other markets with similar fee structures, such as NYSE Arca
and NOM. The Exchange's offering of a reduced fee for Professional,
Firm, and Market Maker orders for Members that meet a volume threshold
is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory for the
reasons described above with respect to volume-based rebates and fees.
    The proposed increase in rebate for Customer orders that add
liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities is reasonable and equitably
allocated because it is the highest rebate provided by the Exchange,
which the Exchange believes will further incent the addition of
Customer orders in non-Penny Pilot Securities to the Exchange's order
book. The proposed change is not unreasonably discriminatory in that it
will apply equally to all Customer orders.
    The proposed increase to the fee for Customer orders that remove
liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities is reasonable and equitably
allocated because it represents only a modest increase to the existing
fee and remains generally equivalent to standard fees charged by other
markets with similar fee structures, such as NYSE Arca and NOM. The
proposal is not unreasonably discriminatory because it will apply
equally to all Customer orders. As described above, the fee increase is
proposed along with a corresponding increase to the rebate, which
should offset some or all of the increased cost to Customer orders.
    The Exchange's proposed increase to the rebate for Professional,
Firm, and Market Maker orders that add liquidity in non-Penny Pilot
Securities is reasonable and equitably allocated because it will incent
the addition of Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders in non-
Penny Pilot Securities to the Exchange's order book. The proposed
change is not unreasonably discriminatory in that it will apply equally
to all Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders.
    The Exchange's proposed increase to the fee to remove liquidity for
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that remove liquidity in
non-Penny Pilot Securities is reasonable and equitably allocated
because it represents only a modest increase to the existing fee and
remains generally equivalent to standard fees charged by other markets
with similar fee structures, such as NYSE Arca and NOM. While
Professional, Firm and Market Maker orders will be assessed comparably
higher transaction fees than those assessed to other Customer orders,
as proposed, the Exchange does not believe that this pricing is
unreasonably discriminatory because the securities markets generally,
and the Exchange in particular, have historically aimed to improve
markets for investors and develop various features within the market
structure for customer benefit. The Exchange also notes that
Professional, Firm and Market Maker orders qualify for additional
rebates under the Exchange's NBBO Setter Program, which is not
applicable to Customer orders. As noted elsewhere, the fee increase is
proposed along with a corresponding increase to the rebate, which
should offset some or all of the increased cost to Customer orders.
    The Exchange's proposed changes to the NBBO Setter Program,
including a general reduction to the rebates available through the
program, are reasonable and equitably allocated in that they are
coupled with increases to the standard rebate to add liquidity. The
proposed rebate structure will reduce the variability and complexity of
rebates for Professional, Firm and Market Maker orders added to the
Exchange's order book. The applicability of the NBBO

Setter Program to Members achieving certain volume thresholds is fair
and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory for the reasons
described above with respect to volume-based rebates and fees. Further,
the Exchange notes that it has reduced the ADV threshold that a Member
needs to reach in order to qualify for the higher tier. The Exchange
also notes that continued exclusion of Customer orders from NBBO Setter
rebates is reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory given the higher base and tiered rebates already
provided to Customer orders. Despite the fact that Customer orders are
not eligible for NBBO Setter Rebates, the proposed modifications to
NBBO Setter Rebates are fair and equitable and not unreasonably
discriminatory because in most circumstances, Customer orders that do
not set the NBBO are eligible for even higher rebates than certain
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders that did set the NBBO and
receive a NBBO Setter Rebate.
    Similarly, the Exchange's removal of Customer orders from the QIP
is reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory
due to the higher base and tiered rebates already provided to Customer
orders. The applicability of the QIP to Members achieving certain
volume thresholds is fair and equitable and not unreasonably
discriminatory for the reasons described above with respect to volume-
based rebates and fees. The Exchange also notes that although
registration as a market maker is required to qualify for QIP, such
registration is available to all Members on an equal basis. With
respect to the reduced rebates available through QIP, the Exchange
reiterates that such reduction is reasonable and equitably allocated
due to a higher base rebate that will be applicable to all Members. Not
only will the higher base rebate help Members to offset any reduction
to QIP rebates but the lower QIP rebates paid by the Exchange will
allow the Exchange to fund such higher based rebates.
    The elimination of the Grow with Us incentive from the Exchange's
tiered pricing structure is also reasonable, equitably allocated and
not unfairly discriminatory because it will significantly simplify the
Exchange's fee schedule and has been coupled with various increases to
standard rebates that will help to reduce the variability of rebates
provided by the Exchange. Further, elimination of the Grow with Us
incentive will allow the Exchange to allocate resources devoted to the
program to other pricing programs.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the various formatting and
ministerial changes are reasonable as they will help to avoid confusion
for those that review the Exchange's fee schedule.

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. With respect to the changes to
fees and rebates for executions on the Exchange that are set forth in
this proposal, the Exchange does not believe that any such changes
burden competition, but instead, enhance competition, as they are
intended to increase the competitiveness of and draw additional volume
to the Exchange's platform. As stated above, the Exchange 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 set by the Exchange to be excessive. The proposed changes are
generally intended to simplify the Exchange's fee structure while
enhancing the base rebates for liquidity added to the Exchange, which
is intended to draw additional liquidity to the Exchange. Thus, the
proposal is a competitive proposal that is intended to add additional
liquidity to the Exchange, which will, in turn, benefit the Exchange
and all Exchange participants.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written 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 \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-BATS-2014-001 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-BATS-2014-001. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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-BATS-2014-001, and should be
submitted on or before February 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01104 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24425-24426]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0642]

Assay Migration Studies for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices; Guidance
for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Assay Migration Studies for In
Vitro Diagnostic Devices.'' This guidance presents a least burdensome
regulatory approach to gain FDA approval of Class III or certain
licensed in vitro diagnostic devices in cases when a previously
approved assay is migrating (i.e., transitioning) to a new system for
which the assay has not been previously approved, licensed, or cleared.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at
any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at
any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
document entitled ``Assay Migration Studies for In Vitro Diagnostic
Devices'' to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and
Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to
301-847-8149. Alternatively, you may submit written requests for single
copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and
Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
(CBER), 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access
to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hojvat, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5524, Silver Spring, MD 20993-002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For further information concerning the study designs in the
guidance:

Marina V. Kondratovich, Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm.
5666, Silver Spring, MD 20993-002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For further information concerning the guidance as it relates to
devices regulated by CBER:

Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD
20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance document for industry and FDA staff entitled
``Assay Migration Studies for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices.'' This
guidance presents a least burdensome regulatory approach to gain FDA
approval of Class III or certain licensed in vitro diagnostic devices
in cases when a previously approved assay is migrating (i.e.,
transitioning) to a new system for which the assay has not been
previously approved or licensed. The approach in this guidance is also
applicable for some 510(k) cleared devices for which transition to a
new system presents specific concerns, either because of the nature of
the analyte and indications, or because of the specific technology used
(e.g., nucleic acid amplification tests). The focus of this guidance is
on the study designs and performance criteria that should be fulfilled
in order for a sponsor to utilize the migration study approach in
support of the change. The FDA believes that the assay migration study
paradigm discussed in this guidance provides a least burdensome
scientific and regulatory pathway for manufacturers to transfer a
previously approved or licensed assay with full clinical data from an
old system to a new system (previously not approved or licensed). The
paradigm is suitable in cases when sufficient knowledge can be derived
from the documentation of design controls, risk analyses, and prior
performance studies on an old system.
    The draft of this guidance was issued on January 5, 2009 (74 FR
302). The comment period closed on April 6, 2009. Three sets of
comments were received and reviewed by FDA. The guidance was updated to
address comments where appropriate. The updated guidance contains
additional examples and explanations and supersedes the draft guidance
``Assay Migration Studies for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices'' issued on
January 5, 2009.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on ``migration studies'' for in vitro
diagnostic device. It does not create or confer any rights for or on
any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. To receive
``Assay Migration Studies for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices,'' you may
either send an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an
electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER>
to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 1660 to identify
the guidance you are requesting. Guidance documents are also available
on the CBER Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations and guidance documents. These
collections of information are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The

collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0338.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: April 19, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-09759 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 34 (Monday, February 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8713]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03488]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-16-000-4157; FRL-9942-62-OAR]

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of document availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2014 is available for public review.

DATES: To ensure your comments are considered for the final version of
the document, please submit your comments by March 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments by any of the following
methods:
     Mail: Leif Hockstad, Climate Change Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207S), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The draft report can be obtained by visiting the U.S. EPA's Climate
Change Site at: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Leif Hockstad, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, Climate Change Division; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014 is being made available for a thirty-day
public review and comment period. Annual U.S. emissions for the period
from 1990 through 2014 are summarized and presented by source category
and sector. The inventory contains estimates of carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC),
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride
(NF3) emissions. The inventory also includes estimates of
carbon fluxes in U.S. agricultural and forest lands. The technical
approach used in this report to estimate emissions and sinks for
greenhouse gases is consistent with the methodologies recommended by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and reported in a
format consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting guidelines. The Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014 is the latest in a series
of annual U.S. submissions to the Secretariat of the UNFCCC. The EPA
requests recommendations for improving the overall quality of the
inventory report to be finalized in April 2016, as well as subsequent
inventory reports.

    Dated: February 11, 2016.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-03488 Filed 2-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 38444]
[DOCID:fr07jy08-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13124-000]

Copper Valley Electric Association; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

June 27, 2008.
    On March 3, 2008, Copper Valley Electric Association filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of Allison Lake Project, located on
Allison Lake and Allison Creek near Valdez, Alaska.
    The applicant proposes three alternatives: Alternative No. 1 has a
new intake/penstock to increase generation at the existing licensed
Project No. 2742 by an annual generation of 20.5 gigawatt-hours (GWh);
Alternative No. 2 has a new intake, tunnel and powerhouse with a
capacity of 4 MW and an annual generation of 24.7 GWh; and Alternative
No. 3 has a new siphon, penstock, and powerhouse with a capacity of 4
MW and an annual generation of 20.9 GWh. All three alternatives would
use the existing Allison Lake and Alternative No. 1 would also use the
Solomon Lake Dam and reservoir.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert A. Wilkinson, CEO, Copper Valley
Electric Association, P.O. Box 45, Mile 187, Glenn Highway, Glennallen,
AK 99588; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero, 202-502-
6002.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13124) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15217 Filed 7-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Summary of the Meeting with Ozone Transport Commission Regarding EPA's Advanced Notice to Solicit Comments, Data and Information for Determining the Emissions Reductions Achieved in Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas from the Implementation of Rules Limiting the VOC Content of Architectural Coatings Date: January 11, 2006 Time: 2: 00 PM Venue: EPA's OAQPS in Research Triangle Park Attendees Present at the meeting:

Ozone Transport Commission Christopher Recchia, Executive Director Douglas Austin, Program Manager EPA David Sanders, OAQPS David Salman, OAQPS William L. Johnson, OAQPS Robert Stallings, OAQPS Individuals who participated by conference telephone:

EPA Tom Helms, OAPQS Geoffrey Wilcox, OGC Anne Arnold, Region I Paul Truchan, Region II Kirk Wieber, Region II Neil Bigioni, Region III Christopher Cripps, Region III Marcia Spink, Region III Ozone Transport Commission Janet Johnson, New Jersey DEP Gene Pettingill, Delaware Dan Brinsko, NY Doris McCloud, VA Gary Graham, VA Summary of the Meeting's Discussions:

In its " Advance Notice to Solicit Comments, Data and Information for Determining the Emissions Reductions Achieved in Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas From the Implementation of Rules Limiting the VOC Content of AIM Coatings" the Environmental Protection Agency also offered the opportunity for interested parties to 2 meet with the Agency to offer comments. In response to this invitation, representatives of the Ozone Transport Commission ( OTC) met ( in person and by teleconference) with EPA on January 11, 2006 to discuss their comments on the issue of the appropriate baseline and methodology to use in architectural and industrial coatings ( AIM) emission reductions calculations.

EPA: Opened the meeting and explained the background for the Advanced Notice. Reiterated that it is not EPA's intent to re open its federal approval of any State AIM rules which have already been approved as SIP revisions or to re open its approval of the Metropolitan Washington DC 1 Hour Ozone Area's rate of progress ( ROP) plan. Explained that EPA had been under a court ordered deadline for taking final action on the Washington area's rate of progress ( ROP) plan. Further explained that in the course of preparing its final action, EPA had determined that regardless of whether one used the baseline and methodology employed by EPA or suggested by the commenters during the proposed rulemaking to approve the Washington area ROP plan, sufficient VOC credits were calculated to satisfy the contingency measures requirements necessary to approve the Washington area ROP plan. Explained that this meant that EPA did not have to make a final determination, as part of its approval of the Washington area ROP plan, as to the appropriate baseline and methodology to use to calculate credit from the state AIM rules. Instead EPA stated in the preamble of the final rule on the Washington area ROP plan that it would commence a separate process for determining the appropriate baseline and methodology to use to calculate credit from the state AIM rules. In publishing The " Advance Notice to Solicit Comments, Data and Information for Determining the Emissions Reductions Achieved in Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas From the Implementation of Rules Limiting the VOC Content of AIM Coatings" EPA has commenced that separate process. Stated that a summary of today's meeting will be placed into the docket of the Advanced Notice where it will be available to be read by the public and all interested parties. The deadline for comments has been extended until February 16, 2006.

OTC: Stated said that the OTC is aware that California ( CARB and South Coast AQMD) are moving further in AIM controls. Explained that the OTC is interested in what California is doing and that an OTC workgroup is considering another round of AIM reductions for purposes of the 8 hour ozone SIPs. Stated that the OTC had calculated that its model state AIM rules resulted in a 31% reduction beyond the federal AIM rule and that EPA had calculated a 35 % reduction. Asked EPA that given the relative closeness in the percent reduction and given the entire VOC inventory of the nonattainment areas and the total reductions needed, is it still necessary to determine, definitively, the baseline for determining credit from the already adopted and SIPapproved AIM rules based on the model rule.

Wanted further clarification that any determination that EPA made regarding the baseline and methodology for determining credit from the already approved State AIM rules would be used prospectively and not to revisit any past determinations. Also wanted clarification that the Advanced Notice and today's meeting were not to consider a 3 reactivity based approach to determining credit from the already adopted and approved OTC states AIM rules.

EPA: Clarified that EPA was not re opening any past rulemakings. Stated that the Advanced Notice and today's meeting were on the OTC states' mass based, not reactivity based, AIM rules. Clarified that, to date, EPA has not issued a final rulemaking on the issue of the credit baseline and methodology for determining reductions from the approved OTC State AIM rules. Explained that some OTC State Commissioners had said to EPA that if in fact their State AIM rules did generate more VOC reductions than they had previously thought to be the case, the additional reductions should be determined as they are needed for the 8 hour ozone SIPs. This is a relevant issue because the 8 hour ozone areas SIPs' baseline ( from which attainment and ROP are determined) uses 2002 as the baseyear. As the compliance date for the SIP approved State AIM rules is not until January 1, 2005, the reductions from the states' SIP approved mass based AIM rules are creditable in the 8 hour plans.

OTC: Replied that the States would certainly need every ton or lb/ day of reduction they can get for the 8 hour ozone plans. However, trying to reproduce the situation which existed for the 2002 inventory may be difficult. Stated said that he had heard numbers of 4.5, 4.7, 5.4, 6.3, 6.7, and 6.9 mentioned as baseline levels. He said distinguishing between these would be worthwhile as there seemed to be confusion between these numbers.

EPA: Relayed some of the purported rationales behind certain baselines and methodologies suggested by various parties at various times. For example, in some cases, the calculations involved starting with a 4.5 baseline to determine the percent reduction achieved by the OTC states' AIM rules beyond the EPA national rule. Others determined this percent reduction starting from a 6.7 baseline from a 1991 EPA emission inventory guidance document.

OTC: Stated that the OTC workgroup would be meeting and would be submitting written comments to the docket established for the Advanced Notice by the February 16, 2006 deadline. Stated they were likely to comment on the appropriate baseline prior to the implementation of the Federal AIM rule, after implementation of the Federal AIM rule, and after implementation of the OTC model rule based state AIM rules. Also stated that while the OTC would encourage EPA to issue its determination regarding the appropriate baseline and methodology, it recommends that EPA provide flexibility based on the quality of the data and should issue guidance rather than a rule about calculation approaches.

The meeting adjourned at 3: 25 PM.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25636-25637]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08871]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10915-01-OAR]

California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
Commercial Harbor Craft; Notice of Public Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment.

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

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA
that is

has adopted amendments to its Commercial Harbor Craft (CHC) regulation.
By letter dated January 31, 2023, CARB asked that EPA authorize these
amendments pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). On
March 17, 2023, EPA announced an opportunity for public hearing and
request for public comment on this request. In that Notice, EPA
announced that it would only hold a virtual public hearing if a request
for hearing was submitted and that the written comment period would
close on May 1, 2023. EPA also announced that it would extend the
written comment closure date in the event a virtual public hearing was
requested and held. EPA has received multiple requests for a virtual
public hearing, so therefore EPA is announcing the date of the virtual
public hearing and the new comment deadline for CARB's request.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the same March 17 Notice (88 FR 16439), EPA announced an
opportunity for public hearing and request for public comment on
CARB's request for a waiver for another regulation, its 2020 Ocean-
Going Vessels At-Berth Amendments. EPA did not receive any requests
for a virtual public hearing on CARB's 2020 Ocean-Going Vessels At-
Berth Amendments before the public hearing request deadline.
Therefore, EPA is not holding a virtual public hearing or extending
the written comment closure date for the 2020 Ocean-Going Vessels At
Berth Amendment waiver request.

DATES: EPA will hold a virtual public hearing concerning CARB's request
on June 1, 2023, beginning at 10 a.m. EST. Any party may submit written
comments on this request by July 1, 2023. Parties wishing to present
oral testimony at the virtual public hearing should email one of the
persons noted below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, by or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
before May 25, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division,
Environmental Protection Agency; Email Address:
[email protected];<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Kayla Steinberg, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division,
Environmental Protection Agency; Email Address:
[email protected];<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0153 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email:[email protected].
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, OAR, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0153, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except federal
holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the
Docket ID No. for this action. Comments received may be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the process for this action, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
     Public Hearing: EPA will hold a public hearing on June 1,
2023, at 10 a.m. EST. More information about the public hearing,
including registration and viewing information, will be posted at
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations (click ``Federal Register Notices
List'' and find the link in the entry for this Notice). Please visit
that page for the most up-to-date information about this public
hearing. Any questions can be directed by email to one of the persons
noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
     EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also
maintains a web page that contains general information on its review of
California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are
links to prior waiver and authorization Federal Register notices. This
page will also include updates and additional information regarding
this authorization proceeding. The page can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Participation: EPA will allow each commenter 5 minutes to
provide oral testimony. In addition, the EPA recommends submitting the
text of your oral testimony to the docket. Written statements and
supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight as oral testimony and supporting
information present at the virtual public hearing. It is not necessary
to register in order to attend the public on June 1, 2023, at 10 a.m.
EST. More information about the public hearing, including registration
and viewing information, will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations (click ``Federal Register Notices List'' and find the
link in the entry for this Notice). Please visit that page for the most
up-to-date information about this public hearing. Those wishing to
present oral testimony at the virtual public hearing should notify a
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT noted above and should do
so by or before May 25, 2023.

    Dated: April 21, 2023.
Karl Simon,
Director, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2023-08871 Filed 4-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6170-6171]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12635-002]

Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and
Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and
Prescriptions; Moriah Hydro Corporation

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 12635-002.
    c. Date Filed: February 13, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Moriah Hydro Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Mineville Energy Storage Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located in an abandoned
subterranean mine complex \1\ in the town of Moriah, Essex County, New
York. No federal lands are occupied by project works or located within
the project boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The existing mine complex is composed of the interconnected
Old Bed, Bonanza open pit, and Harmony mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: James A. Besha, President, Moriah Hydro
Corporation, c/o Albany Engineering Corporation, 5 Washington Square,
Albany, New York 12205,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Chris Millard<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-12635-002.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed project consists of: (1) An upper reservoir located
within the upper portion of the mine between elevations 495 and 1,095
feet above mean seal level (msl), with a surface area of 4 acres and a
storage capacity of 2,448 acre-feet; (2) a lower reservoir in the lower
portion of the mine between elevations -1,075 and -1,555 feet msl, with
a surface area of 5.1 acres and a storage capacity of 2,448 acre-feet;
(3) a 14-foot-diameter and 2,955-foot-long upper reservoir shaft
connecting the upper reservoir to the high-pressure penstock located
below the powerhouse chamber floor; (4) a 14-foot-diameter and 2,955-
foot-long lower reservoir shaft connecting the lower reservoir and the
lower reservoir ventilation tunnel; (5) two 6-foot-diameter emergency
evacuation shafts located between the powerhouse chamber and the
electrical equipment chamber; (6) a 25-foot-diameter main shaft
extending 2, 955 feet from the surface down to the powerhouse chamber;
(7) 15-foot-diameter high- and low-pressure steel penstocks embedded
beneath the powerhouse chamber floor; (8) a 320-foot-long by 80-foot-
wide powerhouse chamber, containing 100 reversible pump-turbine units,
each with a nameplate generating capacity of 2.4 megawatts; (9) a 274-
foot-long by 36-foot-wide underground electrical equipment chamber
adjacent to the powerhouse chamber; (10) an inclined electrical tunnel
connecting the electrical equipment chamber to a new 115-kilovolt (kV)
substation constructed adjacent to an existing single circuit 115-kV
transmission line located about one horizontal mile from the
underground powerhouse chamber; and (11) appurtenant facilities. The
project would operate as a closed-loop system to meet energy demands
and grid control requirements. The project would have an average annual
generation of 421 gigawatt-hours (GWh). The average pumping power used
by the project would be 554 GWh.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or
PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant
and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements
of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations,
terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary
basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b).
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development
application, which has already been given, established the due date for
filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the
Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be
filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the
initial development application. No competing applications or notices
of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
    p. Procedural Schedule:

    The application will be processed according to the following
revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made
as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of comments, recommendations,     April 2018.
 terms and conditions, and
 prescriptions.
Reply comments due.....................  May 2018.
Commission issues Draft EA.............  October 2018.
Comments on Draft EA...................  November 2018.
Commission issues Final EA.............  March 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 5, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02847 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51365]
[DOCID:fr03se08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0829]

Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier East, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Navy Pier East Safety Zone in
Chicago Harbor on September 30, 2008. This action is necessary to
protect vessels and people from the hazards associated with fireworks
displays. This safety zone will restrict vessel traffic from a portion
of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone.

DATES: Enforced from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Bannan, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zone, Navy Pier East, Chicago Harbor, Chicago, IL, 33 CFR 165.933 for
the following event:
    Bridgestone Conference on September 30, 2008 from 8 p.m. through 10
p.m.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or
his designated representative to enter, move within or exit the safety
zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone
shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port
or a designated representative. While within the safety zone, all
vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe
course.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.933 Safety
Zone, Navy Pier East, Chicago Harbor, Chicago, IL and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard
will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these
enforcement periods via broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice
to Mariners.
    The Captain of the Port or his designated representative will issue
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public if enforcement of
the safety zone established by this section is suspended. The Captain
of the Port or his designated representative may be contacted via U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan on channel 16, VHF-FM.

    Dated: August 8, 2008.
Bruce C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. E8-20363 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 5681]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4446-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; 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 Ponca Tribe of Nebraska (FEMA-4446-DR), dated June 17, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on December 20, 2019.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, DuWayne Tewes,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Constance C. Johnson-Cage
as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    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.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-01889 Filed 1-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46896-46898]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19169]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0592; Product Identifier 2019-NE-19-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2A5F, -80C2B1F, -80C2B2F,
-80C2B4F, -80C2B5F, -80C2B6F, -80C2B6FA, -80C2B7F, -80C2B8F, -80C2D1F,
-80C2K1F, -80C2L1F, -80E1A2, -80E1A3, -80E1A4, and -80E1A4/B model
turbofan engines with a certain hydromechanical unit (HMU) installed.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report of fuel coking of the HMU
fuel metering valve (FMV) electro-hydraulic servo valves (EHSV)
resulting in tailpipe fire. This proposed AD would require removal of
the HMU and replacement with a part eligible for installation. The FAA
is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 21,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact General
Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH
45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7759.

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-2019-
0592; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Smith, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7735; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0592;
Product Identifier 2019-NE-19-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA received a report from GE of a tailpipe fire accompanied by
engine rumble after airplane pushback and engine start. After further
analysis, GE identified a buildup of fuel coking or fuel deposits in
the HMU FMV EHSV components. This buildup can cause the EHSV shuttle
valve to respond sluggishly or stick in a certain position. This
condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the HMU, engine
fire, and damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 SB 73-0436 R02,
dated August 15, 2019, and GE SB CF6-80E1 SB 73-0142 R02, dated August
15, 2019. The SBs provide instructions, differentiated by the turbofan
engine model, for repetitive overhauls of the HMU FMV EHSVs. 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

    The FAA is proposing this AD because it evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removal of the HMU and replacement
with a part eligible for installation.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 573 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal and replacement of HMU........  5 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $425        $243,525
                                         hour = $425.
Overhaul HMU FMV EHSV.................  5 work-hours x $85 per             4,000           4,425       2,535,525
                                         hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The 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):

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2019-0592; Product
Identifier 2019-NE-19-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by October 21, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-
80C2A5F, -80C2B1F, -80C2B2F, -80C2B4F, -80C2B5F, -80C2B6F, -
80C2B6FA, -80C2B7F, -80C2B8F, -80C2D1F, -80C2K1F, -80C2L1F, -80E1A2,
-80E1A3, -80E1A4, and -80E1A4/B model turbofan engines with a
certain hydromechanical unit (HMU) part number (P/N) listed in
paragraph 1.A., Table 1, of GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 SB 73-
0436 R02, dated August 15, 2019; or paragraph 1.A., Table 1, of GE
SB CF6-80E1 SB 73-0142 R02, dated August 15, 2019; installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7300, Engine Fuel
and Control.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of fuel coking of the HMU fuel
metering valve (FMV) electro-hydraulic servo valve (EHSV) resulting
in tailpipe fire. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent fuel coking
or fuel deposits in the HMU FMV EHSV. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in failure of the HMU, engine fire, and
damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Remove the HMU and replace with a part eligible for
installation before reaching 40,000 flight hours (FHs) since new or
since the last overhaul, or within 180 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever is later. If the FHs since new or last
overhaul are unknown and unable to be determined, replace the HMU
with a part eligible for installation within 180 days after the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) Thereafter, remove the HMU before reaching 40,000 FHs since
new or since the last overhaul and replace with a part eligible for
installation.

(h) Definition

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is an HMU that has fewer than 40,000 FHs since new or
fewer than 40,000 FHs since overhaul.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, an overhaul of the HMU is an
overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV in accordance with Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(3), of GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0436 R02,
dated August 15, 2019; paragraph 3.C.(3), of GE SB CF6-80E1 SB 73-
0142 R02, dated August 15, 2019; or overhauled by other FAA approved
methods.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your
request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Matthew Smith,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You

may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 30, 2019.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-19169 Filed 9-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P