[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11178-11180]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03602]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0019; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01388-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-
500-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of
deficiencies in the primary flight control computer (PFCC) and remote
electronics unit (REU) software. This proposed AD would require
installation of a software update to correct deficiencies in the PFCC
and REU software, as specified in a Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. 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 April 12,
2021.

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 https://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 TCCA material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in
this AD, contact Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159
Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K1A 0N5 CANADA; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation. You
may view this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0019.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0019; 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, 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: Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
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 ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0019; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01388-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    TCCA, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued
Canadian AD CF-2020-36, dated October 8, 2020 (TCCA AD CF-2020-36)
(also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of deficiencies in the
PFCC and REU software. The FAA is proposing this AD to address software
deficiencies that, if not corrected, could impact flight control
functions, which could prevent continued safe flight and landing. See
the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    TCCA AD CF-2020-36 describes procedures for installing updated PFCC
and REU software; this installation includes pre-requisites that must
be met prior to the installation (installing certain database versions
and software). This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA 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 accomplishing the actions specified
in TCCA AD CF-2020-36, described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as
the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for
corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other
manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this
process. As a result, TCCA AD CF-2020-36 will be incorporated by
reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore,
require compliance with TCCA AD CF-2020-36 in its entirety, through
that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions
in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information
specified in TCCA AD CF-2020-36 that is required for compliance with
TCCA AD CF-2020-36 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0019 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 38 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                      Parts cost            Cost per product      Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 18 work-hours x $85 per hour =   Up to $21,100 *........  Up to $22,630..........  Up to $859,940.
 $1,530.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parts cost to load the software in the REUs.

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included
all known costs in the cost estimate.

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.

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):

Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held
by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.):
Docket No. FAA-2021-0019; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01388-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by April 12, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-
500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Canadian AD CF-2020-36, dated October 8, 2020 (TCCA AD
CF-2020-36).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
control system.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of deficiencies in the primary
flight control computer (PFCC) and remote electronics unit (REU)
software. The FAA is issuing this AD to address software
deficiencies that, if not corrected, could impact flight control
functions, which could prevent continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, TCCA AD CF-2020-36. The pre-requisites specified in
the service information referenced in TCCA AD CF-2020-36 must be met
prior to accomplishing the required actions.

(h) Exception and Clarification of TCCA AD CF-2020-36

    (1) Where TCCA AD CF-2020-36 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The compliance time for the actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD is the earliest of the times specified in paragraphs
(h)(2)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 12,000 total flight hours.
    (ii) Within 56 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (iii) Within 9,350 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Airbus
Canada Limited Partnership's TCCA Design Approval Organization
(DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-
authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For TCCA AD CF-2020-36, contact Transport Canada National
Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K1A
0N5 CANADA; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation. You may view this material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0019.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Thomas Niczky,
Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on January 28, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03602 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68604-68606]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21997]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0509 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0037; FRL-7661-04-OCSPP]

Notice of Approval Status; EPA Plan for the Federal Certification
of Applicators Within Indian Country

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing its
approval of the revised EPA Plan for the Federal Certification of
Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides within Indian Country (2023
EPA Plan). The 2023 EPA Plan is specific to the use of restricted use
pesticides (RUPs) in Indian country. Because of limitations in
Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule (CPA Rule), RUPs may not be
used legally in Indian country unless the Tribe has an EPA-approved
certification plan, the Tribe has entered into an agreement with EPA,
or EPA has issued a Federal certification plan for Indian country. The
2023 EPA Plan supersedes the 2014 EPA Plan and ensures applicators in
Indian country have the competence needed to use RUPs. The amended plan
is consistent with the existing regulatory requirements, including
revisions made in 2017 to enhance and improve the competency of
certified applicators of RUPs and persons working under their

direct supervision. The 2017 regulatory revisions are intended to
further reduce potential exposure of RUPs to certified applicators and
those working under their direct supervision, other workers, the
public, and the environment. Federal, State, Territory, and Tribal
certifying authorities with existing certification plans were required
to revise their existing plans to conform with the updated Federal
standards for RUP applicator certification and receive EPA approval by
the established regulatory deadline.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: The designated EPA points of
contact for the 2023 EPA Plan as listed in Table 1 of Unit I.B.
    For general information contact: Carolyn Schroeder, Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508M), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by or interested in this action if
you are a Federal, State, Territory, or Tribal agency who administers a
certification program for pesticides applicators. You may also be
potentially affected by or interested in this action if you are: A
registrant of RUP products; a person who applies RUPs, including those
under the direct supervision of a certified applicator; a person who
relies upon the availability of RUPs; someone who hires a certified
applicator to apply an RUP; a pesticide safety educator; or other
person who provides pesticide safety training for pesticide applicator
certification or recertification. The following list of North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine
whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities
may include:
     Agricultural Establishments (Crop Production) (NAICS code
111).
     Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421).
     Agricultural Pest Control and Pesticide Handling on Farms
(NAICS code 115112).
     Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712).
     Agricultural (Animal) Pest Control (Livestock Spraying)
(NAICS code 115210).
     Forestry Pest Control (NAICS code 115310).
     Wood Preservation Pest Control (NAICS code 321114).
     Pesticide Registrants (NAICS code 325320).
     Pesticide Dealers (NAICS codes 424690, 424910, 444220).
     Industrial, Institutional, Structural & Health Related
Pest Control (NAICS code 561710).
     Ornamental & Turf, Rights-of-Way Pest Control (NAICS code
561730).
     Environmental Protection Program Administrators (NAICS
code 924110).
     Governmental Pest Control Programs (NAICS code 926140).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    This notice of approval, as well as a copy of the final 2023 EPA
Plan, is available in the dockets for this action at https://www.regulations.gov, identified by docket identification (ID) number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0509 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0037. Additional instructions
on visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets
generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Additional information on the EPA Plan for Indian country is
available on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-applicator-certification-indian-country. EPA also provides frequent status updates
regarding the reviews and approvals of State and Territory
certification plans on its website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/certification-standards-pesticide-applicators.
    For additional assistance in locating documents related to the
approved plan identified in this notice, please consult the designated
EPA point of contact for the Certification Plan of interest as listed
in Table 1 of this unit, or the general contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

                                               Table 1--Designated EPA Point of Contacts for the EPA Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA office                   Certification plan       EPA point of contact        POC phone                        Email
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Pesticide Programs..........  EPA Plan for the Federal  Thomas Lopiano..........<PHONE_NUMBER>  [email protected].
                                         Certification of         Jennifer Park...........<PHONE_NUMBER>  [email protected].
                                         Applicators within
                                         Indian Country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 11 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), 7. U.S.C. 136 et seq., requires certifying authorities to have
an EPA-approved certification plan to certify applicators of RUPs. The
CPA regulation at 40 CFR part 171 was amended in 2017 (Ref. 1). As a
result, Federal, State, Territory, and Tribal certifying authorities
with existing certification plans were required to revise their
existing certification plans to conform with the updated Federal
standards for the certification of applicators of RUPs and submit their
revisions to EPA by March 2020 for EPA review and approval. The CPA
regulation specifies that the existing certification plans remain in
place until the revised plans are approved by EPA on or before the
regulatory deadline established in 40 CFR 171.5. The Agency has since
issued a final rule extending the original deadline for certification
plans to comply with the updated Federal standards under the 2017 CPA
rule to November 4, 2023 (Ref. 2).
    FIFRA section 11(a)(1) also requires that in any Tribe for which a
Tribal plan for applicator certification has not been approved by the
EPA Administrator, the Administrator, in consultation with the
Chairperson of such Tribe, shall conduct a program for the
certification of applicators of pesticides. The CPA regulation at 40
CFR part 171.307(c) requires the Agency, in consultation with Tribes,
to implement an EPA-administered certification plan to certify private
and commercial applicators in areas of Indian country where no other
EPA-approved certification plan or an EPA-Tribal agreement is in place
and where the relevant Tribe has not chosen to opt out of the EPA-
administered plan.

III. What action is the Agency taking?

    This action gives notice that the 2023 EPA Plan (Ref. 3) meets the
standards of 40 CFR part 171 and is now an approved plan. EPA may
certify RUP applicators and continue with

implementation of the revised certification plan as outlined in the
2023 EPA Plan's implementation section. EPA will implement this Federal
program to certify applicators of RUPs in areas of Indian country where
no other EPA-approved or EPA-implemented plan applies. This plan will
not be applicable in areas where a Tribe has opted out of the 2023 EPA
Plan consistent with 40 CFR 171.307(c)(2). The 2023 EPA Plan, which
supersedes the 2014 EPA Plan, describes the updated process by which
EPA will implement a program for the certification of applicators of
RUPs in Indian country based upon the certification requirements
enumerated at 40 CFR part 171. The final 2023 EPA Plan, in its
entirety, is included in the docket.

IV. Summary of the Final 2023 EPA Plan

    On March 2, 2020, EPA published a Federal Register notice seeking
comment on proposed revisions to the EPA-administered Federal pesticide
applicator certification plan to certify applicators of RUPs in areas
of Indian country that are not covered by any other EPA-approved
certification plan (Ref. 4). The proposed revisions sought to bring the
EPA Plan for Indian country into compliance with the updated CPA
regulation at 40 CFR part 171 that was amended in 2017 (Ref. 1). Unit
VI of the 2020 notice provides additional background and context for
the development of the revised EPA Plan, while Unit VII of that notice
provides an overview of the proposed changes to the EPA Plan. EPA did
not receive any comments during the comment period for the 2020 notice.
    In developing what is now the final 2023 EPA Plan, EPA also
consulted with affected Tribes as required under 40 CFR 171.307(c) and
171.311(d)(1). The Tribal consultation period started on February 10,
2020, and was scheduled to end on May 1, 2020. However, due to the
impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency, EPA extended the Tribal
consultation period to August 3, 2020. During the Tribal consultation
period, EPA consulted with federally recognized Tribes on February 26,
April 6, and July 15, 2020, to help ensure the proposed revisions to
the 2014 EPA Plan effectively met their needs and those of RUP
applicators in Indian country. More information about the Tribal
consultation can be found on the Tribal Consultation Opportunities
Tracking System (Ref. 5).
    EPA has finalized many of its proposals as described in the 2020
notice. However, EPA has revised some of its proposals in response to
the feedback received during the Tribal consultation period. In other
areas, EPA has refined and provided additional detail to increase
clarity and transparency in the plan and the process. These revisions
include:
     Clarifying definitions of private and commercial
applicators;
     Providing an additional acceptable identification specific
to Tribes;
     Adding descriptions of Tribes that have their own
certification plans under 40 CFR 171.307(a) or (b);
     Listing out Federal minimum standards for recordkeeping
requirements for commercial applicators, certified applicator
responsibilities for direct supervision of noncertified applicators,
and noncertified applicator qualifications; and
     Outlining the implementation of the revised EPA Plan.
    Due to limitation in the CPA regulation, RUPs may not be used
legally in Indian country unless the Tribe has an EPA-approved
certification plan, the Tribe has entered into an agreement with EPA,
or EPA has issued a Federal certification plan for Indian country. The
EPA Plan provides that third option for Tribes to allow for applicator
certification within Indian country; however, Tribes may also opt out
of the EPA Plan and RUP use will generally be prohibited in their areas
of Indian country. Tribes may also have their own additional Tribal
laws and codes in addition to the EPA Plan and applicators who wish to
apply in Indian country should contact the relevant Tribe to ensure the
application is compliant with both.

V. References

    The following is a list of documents that are related to the
issuance of this Notice. For assistance in locating these other
documents, please see Table 1 in Unit I.B.

1. EPA. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators; Final
Rule. Federal Register. 82 FR 952, January 4, 2017 (FRL-9956-70).
2. EPA. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators; Further
Extension to Expiration Date of Certification Plans; Final Rule.
Federal Register. 87 FR 50953, August 19, 2022 (FRL-9134.1-04-
OCSPP).
3. EPA. EPA Plan for the Federal Certification of Applicators of
Restricted Use Pesticides within Indian Country. September 26, 2023.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0509 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-
2011-0037.
4. EPA. EPA Plan for the Federal Certification of Applicators of
Restricted Use Pesticides Within Indian Country; Proposed Revisions;
Notice of Availability and Request for Comment. Federal Register. 85
FR 12244, March 2, 2020 (FRL-10005-59).
5. EPA. Tribal Consultation Opportunities Tracking System. Available
at https://tcots.epa.gov/ords/tcotspub/f?p=106:5::988::RR,2::.
Accessed September 20, 2023.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y.

    Dated: September 27, 2023.
Mary Elissa Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-21997 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 202-205]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33097]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63602; File No. SR-NFA-2010-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Amendments, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, to the Interpretive Notice
Regarding NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Enhanced Supervisory Requirements

December 22, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-7 under the Exchange Act,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on October 7, 2010, National Futures Association
(``NFA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the NFA. On
December 7, 2010, NFA filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons. NFA also has filed
this proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 6, 2010, NFA requested that the CFTC make a
determination that review of the proposed rule change of NFA is not
necessary.\3\ On October 20, 2010, the CFTC notified NFA that it had
determined not to review the proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from Thomas W. Sexton III, Senior Vice President/
General Counsel, NFA, to William Penner, Deputy Directory, CFTC
(Oct. 6, 2010).
    \4\ See Letter from William Penner, Deputy Director, CFTC, to
Thomas W. Sexton III, General Counsel, NFA (Oct. 20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description and Text of the Proposed
Rule Change

    The proposed amendments to NFA Compliance Rule 2-9's Interpretive
Notice entitled ``Enhanced Supervisory Requirements'' (``Notice'')
would provide limited relief for some Members that currently would
qualify for the enhanced supervisory requirements (``Requirements'')
based on a firm principal's previous affiliation with another Member
firm that was subject to the Requirements; makes changes to the
enhanced capital requirements in light of a recent increase in the
futures commission merchant (``FCM'') minimum capital requirement;
makes changes to deal with the enhanced capital requirements for
commodity pool operators (``CPOs'') and commodity trading advisors
(``CTAs'') in a manner more consistent with the nature of their
business; requires specific items to be included in a firm's written
supervisory procedures; requires quarterly rather than monthly reports
on a firm's compliance with the Requirements; and includes clarifying
language in three areas: (1) Charging abnormally high commissions and
fees; (2) the effect that receiving a waiver has on determining whether
a Member is a firm that has met the criteria for future situations
involving the Requirements; and (3) the status of a ``five year''
Disciplined Firm after it has been dropped from the ``five year'' list.
    The text of the Interpretive Notice is available on NFA's Web site
at http://www.nfa.futures.org, the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, the self-regulatory organization's office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NFA 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. NFA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act \5\ makes NFA a national
securities association for the limited purpose of regulating the
activities of NFA Members (``Members'') who are registered as brokers
or dealers under Section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act.\6\ The
Interpretive Notice entitled: ``NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Enhanced
Supervisory Requirements'' applies to all Members, including those who
are registered as security futures brokers or dealers under Section
15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Member firms trigger the Requirements based upon the regulatory
background of either their associated persons (``APs'') or principals.
Member firms triggering the Requirements must record all telephone
conversations with customers and prospects, pre-submit promotional
material, adopt written supervisory procedures and either operate under
a guarantee agreement or maintain an enhanced capital level. The
proposed amendments to the Notice include:
     Limited relief for some Members that would currently
qualify for the Requirements based on a firm principal's previous
affiliation with another Member firm that was subject to the
Requirements;
     Changes to the enhanced capital requirements in light of a
recent increase in the FCM minimum capital requirement;
     Changes to deal with the enhanced capital requirements for
CPOs and CTAs in a manner more consistent with the nature of their
business;
     Requiring specific items to be included in a firm's
written supervisory procedures;
     Requiring quarterly rather than monthly reports on a
firm's compliance with the Requirements; and
     Clarifying language regarding: (1) Charging abnormally
high commissions and fees; (2) the effect that receiving a waiver has
on future situations involving the Requirements; and (3) the status of
a ``five year'' Disciplined Firm after it has been dropped from the
``five year'' list.
    Historically, a Member would trigger the Requirements only if it
had a defined percentage of APs who had previously worked for a
Disciplined Firm.
    In 2005, NFA's Board made revisions to the Notice after recognizing
that the principals of several firms that had triggered the
Requirements had avoided them by simply closing their firms and opening
other firms that had a mix of APs that did not trigger the
Requirements. NFA noted that the new firms typically had APs from the
closed firm who had worked at Disciplined Firms, but their percentage
ratios to the overall AP population of the new firms were below the
triggering point for imposing the Requirements. NFA's Board addressed
this issue by amending the Notice to provide that once a firm had
triggered the Requirements, then any other firms of which the
principals of the qualifying firm are also principals would become
subject to the Requirements.
    NFA believes that the 2005 revision has been generally effective in
discouraging the practice of sham reorganizations to avoid the
Requirements. However, NFA has found

that there were some principals whose firms triggered the Requirements
with backgrounds that suggested they were not part of the population to
which the amendment was designed to apply. NFA undertook the task of
identifying objective criteria that were met by individuals who did not
appear to be part of the target group but were, nevertheless, affected
by the 2005 amendment. In doing so, NFA focused on criteria similar to
those that have been adopted to provide exemptions to some APs who
previously worked at Disciplined Firms. These criteria include a clean
personal regulatory record and limited affiliation with potentially
problematic Members.
    NFA has identified a set of five criteria that apply to
approximately 60 individuals and approximately five entities that do
not appear to raise undue concerns regarding their ability to
effectively supervise their firms. Those criteria include the
following:
     The principal has not been personally subject to a
disciplinary action by NFA or the CFTC;
     The principal has been a principal of only one firm that
has qualified for the Requirements;
     The principal has never been a principal or an AP of a
current Disciplined Firm;
     The firm in the principal's history that triggered the
Requirements either received a full waiver from the Requirements or
abided by the Requirements for at least two years and is no longer
subject to the Requirements; and
     The firm in the principal's history that triggered the
Requirements has not become subject to a sales practice action since
triggering the Requirements.
    NFA believes that exempting Members from adopting the Requirements
when those Requirements are triggered by a principal who meets the
aforementioned five criteria would eliminate the need for some waiver
petitions (which are typically granted), saving time and undue
complications for the affected Members, the Telemarketing Procedures
Waiver Committee (``Waiver Committee'') and NFA staff. NFA believes
that this exemption could provide relief to certain principals whose
profiles indicate that they are unlikely to pose any supervisory
issues. In addition, NFA does not believe that this change will
diminish customer protection because the principals that will be
exempted are those principals who would almost always have been granted
a waiver based on meeting the aforementioned criteria.
    The Notice currently provides that FCMs affected by the Notice are
required to maintain adjusted net capital (``ANC'') of at least
$1,000,000. When this provision was adopted the minimum ANC level was
$500,000. However, the minimum ANC for all FCMs was raised to
$1,000,000 in March 2010, rendering the current provision moot.
    NFA proposes to revise the language in the Notice regarding the
enhanced level of ANC required to be maintained by affected FCMs to tie
the required enhanced ANC to the minimum ANC for FCMs. The proposed
amendments would track the approach taken by the Board in 2008 to deal
with changes to the enhanced ANC provision for Forex Dealer Members
(``FDMs''). Specifically, rather than set a defined number, it would
tie the enhanced ANC level for FCMs to the early warning requirement
under CFTC rules, which is currently 150% of required ANC. NFA believes
that this revision would not only bring the current enhanced ANC
obligation into harmony with that required of FDMs, but would also
provide flexibility in light of any future changes to the level of the
minimum ANC required of FCMs.
    The Notice currently requires CPOs and CTAs that trigger the
Requirements to maintain ANC of at least $250,000. In addition,
affected CPOs and CTAs are currently subject to the financial
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to FCMs.
    According to NFA, it is relatively uncommon for CPOs and CTAs to
qualify for the Requirements, and if CPOs and CTAs do qualify, they
often request relief from the $250,000 capital requirement even if they
are required to tape. The Waiver Committee has dealt with ten waiver
petitions from CPO or CTA Members and completely denied five of those
petitions. Four of those firms are no longer NFA Members. The other
five received partial waivers that reduced the enhanced ANC
requirement. Two waivers set the required ANC level at $100,000, two
set it at $75,000, and one eliminated the obligation altogether. Three
of the five firms that received waivers remain NFA Members. In granting
these petitions, the Waiver Committee recognized that because CPOs and
CTAs do not have a minimum net capital requirement, imposing the
reduced $100,000 requirement was sufficient to meet the purpose of the
requirement.
    In light of the Waiver Committee's past decisions regarding this
issue, NFA proposes to amend the Notice to reduce the ANC required of
CPOs and CTAs that trigger the Requirements from the current $250,000
to $100,000. In addition, the proposed amendments to the Notice would
provide that the financial recordkeeping and reporting obligations of
affected CPOs and CTAs be simplified by merely requiring them to
demonstrate compliance with their enhanced ANC obligation to NFA upon
request.
    The proposed amendments to the Notice identify specific areas that
would need to be addressed by an affected Member in the written
supervisory procedures they are required to prepare. NFA believes that
this addition will give clear guidance as to the minimum standards to
be met in preparing written supervisory procedures. Generally, the
proposed language requires procedures for monitoring, cataloging and
logging taped conversations in an affected Member's written supervisory
procedures.
    The Notice currently requires affected Members to file monthly
reports regarding their compliance with the Requirements. It has been
NFA's experience in reviewing these reports that most of them tend to
be repetitious in nature. Nevertheless, NFA feels that the reports are
useful in that they periodically bring the Member's focus to bear on
the Requirements, create a written historical record and, on occasion,
may provide the impetus for corrective action by the Member. NFA
proposes to change the frequency of the obligation to file such reports
from monthly to quarterly. NFA believes that lengthening the frequency
for filing the reports will not in any way diminish customer protection
because the reports alone do not typically form the basis of an NFA
investigation or disciplinary action. Moreover, NFA uses other methods
to monitor Member compliance with the Requirements.
    Members that charge 50% or more of their active customers round-
turn commissions, fees and other charges that total $100 or more per
futures, forex or option contract are required to adopt the
Requirements. NFA represents that it has recently encountered
situations in which Members purchase out-of-the-money options and
charge a commission just short of $100. In these situations there are
additional charges if the option is liquidated that would bring total
charges above $100; however, NFA believes that it is often the case
that the out-of-the-money options expire worthless and no additional
costs are assessed. The result is that some Members are able to avoid
the Requirements by encouraging their customers to take on riskier out-
of-the-money positions that are less likely to

incur liquidation charges that would raise costs to $100 or more.
    Members that engage in the practice described above are, in NFA's
view, clearly within the group of Members that the Board believed
should be subject to the Requirements when it chose to use high
commissions and fees as a trigger for imposing the Requirements.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Notice provide that trading
an options contract that would result in total commissions, fees and
other charges of $100 or more if the trade was liquidated will be
deemed to have been charged $100 even if the contract is not ultimately
liquidated.
    The proposed amendments to the Notice would add language that NFA
believes would clarify that a Member that receives a full or partial
waiver is still deemed to be a Member that has met the criteria for
purposes of the Notice.
    From 1993 until 2007, the term ``Disciplined Firm'' included only
Members that had been permanently barred from the industry as the
result of a sales practice or promotional material action. In 2007, the
amendments to the Notice added Members that had been sanctioned in any
way in a sales practice or promotional material action within the
preceding five years to the definition of a Disciplined Firm. This
resulted in the creation of a list of ``five year'' Disciplined Firms
that is separate from the list of permanent Disciplined Firms. The
electronic reporting system that monitors Disciplined Firms
automatically removes these firms from the Disciplined Firm list once
five years have passed.
    According to NFA, there has been some confusion expressed as to
whether a ``five year'' Disciplined Firm is still considered to be a
Disciplined Firm for purposes of triggering the Requirements once the
firm is dropped from the ``five year'' list. NFA believes that the
proposed amendments to the Notice would eliminate this confusion by
simply adding the word ``current'' before the term ``Disciplined Firm''
in four relevant places in Section III (B)(1) of the Notice.
    Amendments to the Interpretive Notice regarding NFA Compliance Rule
2-9: Enhanced Supervisory Requirements were previously filed with the
SEC in SR-NFA-2003-01, Exchange Act Release No. 34-47533 (Mar. 19,
2003), 68 FR 14733 (Mar. 26, 2003); SR-NFA-2005-01, Exchange Act
Release No. 34-52808 (Nov. 18, 2005), 70 FR 71347 (Nov. 28, 2005); SR-
NFA-2006-01, Exchange Act Release No. 34-53568 (Mar. 29, 2006), 71 FR
16850 (Apr. 4, 2006); SR-NFA-2007-03, Exchange Act Release No. 34-55710
(May 4, 2007), 72 FR 26858 (May 11, 2007); SR-NFA-2007-07, Exchange Act
Release No. 34-57142 (Jan. 14, 2008), 73 FR 3502 (Jan. 18, 2008); and
SR-NFA-2008-01, Exchange Act Release No. 34-57640 (Apr. 9, 2008), 73 FR
20341 (Apr. 15, 2008).
2. Statutory Basis
    NFA believes that the proposed rule change is authorized by, and
consistent with, Section 15A(k)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.\7\ That
section sets out requirements for rules of futures associations,
registered under Section 17 of the Commodity Exchange Act,\8\ that are
a registered national securities association for the limited purpose of
regulating the activities of members who are registered as brokers or
dealers in security futures products pursuant to Section 15(b)(11) of
the Exchange Act. Under Section 15A(k)(2)(B), the rules of such a
limited purpose national securities association must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, including rules governing sales
practices and the advertising of security futures products reasonably
comparable to the rules of a registered national securities association
applicable to security futures products. NFA believes the proposed rule
change would meet these requirements by: Providing limited relief for
some Members that would currently qualify for the Requirements based on
a principal's previous affiliation with another Member firm that was
subject to the Requirements; changing the enhanced capital requirements
in light of a recent increase in the FCM minimum capital requirement;
changing the enhanced capital requirements for CPOs and CTAs in a
manner more consistent with the nature of their business; requiring
specific items to be included in a firm's written supervisory
procedures; requiring quarterly rather than monthly reports on a firm's
compliance with the Requirements; and clarifying language regarding--
charging abnormally high commissions and fees; the effect that
receiving a waiver has on determining whether a Member is a firm that
has met the criteria for futures situation involving the Requirements;
and the status of a ``five year'' Disciplined Firm after it has been
dropped from the ``five year'' list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k)(2)(D).
    \8\ 7 U.S.C. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NFA believes that the portion of the proposed rule change that
exempts Members from adopting the Requirements when those Requirements
are triggered by a principal who meets the specified five criteria
should lessen the burden on competition by eliminating the need for
waiver requests that are typically granted and decreasing the number of
firms that are subject to the requirement by automatically exempting
firms that qualify based on principals whose profiles indicate that
they are unlikely to pose supervisory problems.
    NFA does not believe that the proposed changes to CPO and CTA
capital requirements and reporting requirements for firms that trigger
the Requirements would impose any burden on competition.
    Although the proposed rule change would require FCMs subject to the
Requirements to maintain additional capital, NFA believes that the
increase is necessary in order to maintain the purpose behind the
Requirements, and is also consistent with the approach NFA adopted with
respect to FDMs. The minimum capital level for all FCMs was recently
increased to $1,000,000, which is the same amount currently required of
FCMs subject to the enhanced requirement. In order for the enhanced
Requirements to maintain their original purpose, NFA believes that the
capital requirement must be increased. Rather than setting another
fixed dollar amount, the proposed amendment would tie the required
enhanced ANC to the early warning requirement under CFTC rules (150% of
minimum ANC). This revision would impose the same standard on FCM and
FDM Members and take into consideration any future changes to ANC
levels.
    The proposed rule change identifies specific areas that need to be
addressed by an affected Member in the written supervisory procedures
it is currently required to prepare. NFA represents that the changes
would not impose additional substantive requirements on Members.
Rather, NFA believes this language would address requests for Members
for specific guidance on how to comply with their obligation to
monitor, catalog and log taped conversations. Therefore, NFA does not
believe this change imposes any burden on competition.
    The current rule requires Members that charge 50% or more of their
active customers round-turn commissions, fees and other charges that
total $100 or more per futures, forex or option

contract to adopt the Requirements. NFA has identified a trend where
some Members encourage their customers to take on riskier out-of-the
money options at a cost just below $100. Because in NFA's view these
positions are much less likely to be liquidated and charged a
liquidation fee, the total cost remains under the $100 threshold. NFA
states that the proposed rule change may increase the number of Members
subject to the Requirements because option contracts that would result
in total commission, fees and other charges of $100 or more if the
trade was liquidated will be deemed to have been charged $100 even if
the trade is not liquidated. NFA believes that the additional burden is
necessary, however, because Members that engage in this practice are
clearly within the group of Members that NFA's Board believed should be
subject to the enhanced Requirements when it chose to use high
commissions and fees as a trigger for imposing the Requirements.
    NFA believes that the proposed provision that changes a Member's
reporting obligation with respect to its report on compliance with the
Requirements will also lessen the burden on Members. Under this
provision, a Member will be permitted to file this report on a
quarterly rather than monthly basis.
    NFA believes that the final two proposed revisions do not add any
burden to competition because they are merely clarifying current
requirements. One proposed rule change would add language that NFA
believes makes it clear that a Member that receives a full or partial
waiver is still deemed to be a Member that has met the criteria for
purposes of the Notice. Another proposed rule change would add the word
``current'' before the term ``Disciplined Firm'' in four relevant
places in order to clarify that a ``five year'' Disciplined Firm will
no longer be a Disciplined Firm for purposes of triggering the
Requirements once the firm is dropped from the ``five year'' list.

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

    NFA states that it worked with its Member Advisory Committees in
developing the rule change. NFA did not, however, publish the rule
change to its membership for comment. NFA states that it did not
receive comment letters concerning the rule change.

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

    On October 20, 2010, the CFTC notified NFA that it had approved the
rule change, and therefore, NFA is permitted to make the amendments
effective as of this date.
    Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule
change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily
abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule
change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1)
of the Act.

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 Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NFA-2010-04.

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-NFA-2010-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of NFA. 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 publicly available.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-33097 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

03/07/2008 09:31 AM

To

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Lydia Wegman, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: Ron, I'll have initial RIA comments to you by cob today

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/07/2008 09:30 AM -----

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 03/07/2008 09:27 AM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Ron, I'll have initial RIA comments to you by cob today

I hope all is well --

h

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:08 AM

To<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS>King, Heidi R.;

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Johansson, Robert;

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Fw: NCEE comments on Ozone RIA - Appendix 9B

Generally, there are reductions occurring between 2020 and 2030 in SJ

and SC which Houston obviously does not get advantage of.   More

specifically, the locomotive/marine rule gets 120,000 tons of reduction

in that area.  See chapter 9, Appendix B

  "Overall, the loco-marine 2030 inventory contains about 120,000 fewer

tons of NOx than the 2020 loco-marines inventory for the geographic area

in California being analyzed."

             Al

             McGartland/DC/US

             EPA/US                                                  To

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             03/06/2008 06:01                                        cc

             PM                       Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet

                                      Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

                                      Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie

                                      Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas

                                      Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia

                                      Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      Re: Fw: NCEE comments on Ozone

                                      RIA -  Appendix 9B(Document link:

                                      Ron Evans - New)

Can I ask a follow up?  Houston also has to reduce to meet the current

standard -- or anothe way of saying it is that LA, SJ an dHouston are

all starting from the same place -- attainment of the existing standard.

Why does Houston need over twice as many tons reduced as either LA or

SJ?   So, I am not sure why the increment to meet the current standard

being so high in SC and SJ would suggest much about the tons needed to

attain the new standard.

Al McGartland, PhD.

Director, National Center for Environmental Economics US EPA

1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

202.566.2244

             Ron

             Evans/RTP/USEPA/

             US                                                      To

                                      Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

             03/06/2008 05:47                                        cc

             PM                       Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet

                                      Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

                                      Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie

                                      Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas

                                      Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia

                                      Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      Fw: NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -

                                      Appendix 9B

Here is a response to your question about Houston

Your question:    Consequently, the extrapolated cost estimates also

appear low to us.  For example, how is it that both South Coast and San

Joaquin will reach attainment of 0.075 for $680M (using the $15,000

fixed cost approach) (Table 9b.4) and $1B using the mid hybrid approach

(Table 9b-6), but Houston's extrapolated cost for 0.075 using fixed

approach was $1.6B (from Table 5a.19), and  $2.4B using mid hybrid

approach (Table 5a.23)?

Houston needs an additional 110,000 tons to reach 0.075ppm in the year

2020.  LA, and SJ needs 45,000 tons for the year 2030.  As discussed on

page 2 of Appendix 9b, the locomotive marine rule will results in an

additional 120,000 tons of emission reductions.  This along with the

increment to meet the current standard being so high, results in SC & SJ

not needing as many reductions as Houston.

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/06/2008 04:28 PM -----

             Elizabeth

             Kopits/DC/USEPA/

             US                                                      To

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             03/06/2008 04:25                                        cc

             PM                       Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet

                                      Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

                                      Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie

                                      Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas

                                      Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      Re: NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -

                                      Appendix 9B(Document link: Ron

                                      Evans - New)

Hi Ron,

Thanks for getting back to us, but we are still confused.  The figures

we cited below for Houston were the reductions and costs necessary to

reach attainment of tighter standards incremental to full attainment of

the current standard.  So the large difference between the South

Coast/San Joaquin and Houston (to take one example) results are still

perplexing.

But if you'd prefer, we can talk about this further once OMB has had a

chance to comment on this chapter too.

Thanks,

Elizabeth and Cynthia

             Ron

             Evans/RTP/USEPA/

             US                                                      To

                                      Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

             03/06/2008 03:39                                        cc

             PM                       Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet

                                      Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

                                      Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie

                                      Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas

                                      Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      Re: NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -

                                      Appendix 9B(Document link:

                                      Elizabeth Kopits)

See comments in blue.   Let me know if you have additional questions.

             Elizabeth

             Kopits/DC/USEPA/

             US                                                      To

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             03/06/2008 12:13                                        cc

             PM                       Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet

                                      Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

                                      Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie

                                      Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas

                                      Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -

                                      Appendix 9B(Document link: Ron

                                      Evans - New)

Hi Ron,

In order to get our reactions to you as quickly as possible, we are

keeping our comments on Appendix 9B to major ones only.  Our main

concern is that the 2030 emissions reductions (and hence costs) needed

to bring South Coast and San Joaquin into attainment appear to us to be

very low.

Most of the reductions need to occur as part of meeting the current

ozone standard.  See Table 9b.2  Therefore the costs of going a little

further are not dramatic.

On p. 2, you note that the NOx reductions needed to get the Los Angeles

and San Joaquin Valley areas into attainment by 2030 (Table 9b.2) are

based on the NOx targets for Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin in Table

9b.1.   Does that mean that you are assuming if emissions are reduced by

90+% in South Coast then San Joaquin will also come into full

attainment, or are you reducing both South Coast and San Joaquin

emissions by 90+%??   What are  the  emission reductions needed to meet

the various standards in San Joaquin, assuming the estimates in Table

9b.2 are based on South Coast only?

The 90% is to get both areas into attainment.  The geographic area for

CA includes most of the state.  Therefore we reduce both to get the most

extreme area into attainment.  9b.2 includes a large area.  See Maps

from Chapter 4.

In Table 9b.3, something doesn't seem right.  When compared to

extrapolated tons needed in other areas, the estimates in Table 9b.3

appear to us to be so low as to not pass the laugh test, but perhaps we

are missing something?   For example, how is it that only 78,000 tons

are needed to bring BOTH South Coast and San Joaquin into attainment

with 0.065, yet 180,000 extrapolated tons were needed (post application

of supplemental controls) to bring Houston into attainment of 0.065 (see

Table 5.2)?   Even with the additional emissions reductions expected

from mobile programs between 2020 and 2030, the magnitude of these

differences seem strange to us.

This is due to the large amount of emissions needed to meet the current

standard.

Consequently, the extrapolated cost estimates also appear low to us.

For example, how is it that both South Coast and San Joaquin will reach

attainment of 0.075 for $680M (using the $15,000 fixed cost approach)

(Table 9b.4) and $1B using the mid hybrid approach (Table 9b-6), but

Houston's extrapolated cost for 0.075 using fixed approach was $1.6B

(from Table 5a.19), and  $2.4B using mid hybrid approach (Table 5a.23)?

Thanks,

Elizabeth and Cynthia


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 26219]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1411-000]

CNR Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
CNR Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 11, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 21, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10134 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34635-34638]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15499]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83644; File No. SR-ISE-2018-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE Rule
723

July 16, 2018.
    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 July 5, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 723, entitled ``Price
Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 723, entitled ``Price Improvement
Mechanism for Crossing Transactions.'' Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 723(c)(2) to expand the types of Improvement
Orders \3\ that may be entered into the Price Improvement Mechanism or
``PIM.'' The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 723(d)(1)-(3) to more
specifically clarify terms such as ``orders'' and ``responses'' in that
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 723(c)(1) defines an Improvement Order. The Exchange
will designate via circular a time of no less than 100 milliseconds
and no more than 1 second for Members to indicate the size and price
at which they want to participate in the execution of the Agency
Order (``Improvement Orders'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    ISE received approval to establish its PIM in 2004 that would allow
an ISE Electronic Access Member (``EAM'') to enter matched trades
(``Crossing Transactions'').\4\ A Crossing Transaction

would be comprised of an order that the EAM represents as agent
(``Agency Order'') and an order that is executable against the Agency
Order for the full size of the Agency Order (the ``Counter-Side
Order'').\5\ ISE Rule 723(c)(2) provided that Improvement Orders may be
for the account of a Public Customer or for the Member's own
account.\6\ The ISE noted it would broadcast Crossing Orders to all
Members.\7\ During a three second auction, all ISE Members could enter
``Improvement Orders,'' in penny increments, to improve the price of
the Agency Order.\8\ Improvement Orders may be for the account of a
Public Customer or for the Member's own account.\9\ During the exposure
period, the aggregate size of the best prices, including the Counter-
Side Order, Improvement Orders, and any change to either, would
continually be updated and broadcast to all Members.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50819 (December 8,
2004), 69 FR 75093 (December 15, 2004) (SR-ISE-2003-06) (Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1
Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
to Amendments No. 2 and 3 Thereto by the International Securities
Exchange, Inc. To Establish Rules Implementing a Price Improvement
Mechanism) (``Adopting Filing'').
    \5\ The Counter-Side Order may represent interest for the EAM's
own account, or interest the EAM has solicited from one or more
other parties, or a combination of both.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ The broadcast message would include the series, price, and
size of the Agency Order and whether it is to buy or sell.
    \8\ The ISE would broadcast Improvement Orders to all Members.
Crossing Transactions and Improvement Orders would not be displayed
in the ISE BBO and would not be disseminated to the Options Price
Reporting Authority.
    \9\ ISE Rule 723(c)(2).
    \10\ ISE Rule 723(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 723(c)(2)
    With respect to the current limitation of Improvement Orders for
the account of a Public Customer or for the Member's own account, ISE
noted in its Adopting Filing that ``all ISE Members would be permitted
to participate in a PIM . . . unrelated orders could compete in
standard increments to trade with the Agency Order in the PIM. Such
unrelated orders could include agency orders on behalf of Public
Customers, market makers on other exchanges, and non-ISE member broker-
dealers, as well as non-Improvement orders submitted by ISE members.''
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to permit any ISE Member to
enter an Improvement Order marked as a response to a PIM auction
similar to Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') \11\ and Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'')
\12\ rules. The Exchange no longer desires to limit Members who may
enter Improvement Orders into PIM to simply those orders for the
account of a Public Customer or for the Member's own account. The
Exchange desires to expand the types of orders that may be entered as
Improvement Orders similar to Phlx and BX. The Exchange is therefore
removing this limitation in Rule 723(c)(2) so that the proposed rule
text would read: ``Improvement Orders may be entered by all Members in
one-cent increments at the same price as the Crossing Transaction or at
an improved price for the Agency Order, and for any size up to the size
of the Agency Order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Phlx Rule 1087 permits any member to submit for execution
an order it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer,
broker-dealer, or any other entity (``PIXL Order'').
    \12\ BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 9 provides that ``A
Participant may electronically submit for execution an order it
represents as agent on behalf of a Public Customer, broker dealer,
or any other entity (``PRISM Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 723(d)(1)-(3)
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 723(d)(1)-(3), which explains
the manner in which a PIM Order shall be allocated to conform this text
to the change which is proposed in Rule 723(c)(2). Rule 723(d)(1)
currently provides, ``At a given price, Priority Customer interest is
executed in full before Professional Orders \13\ and any other interest
of Members (i.e., proprietary interest from Electronic Access Members
and Exchange market makers).'' The Exchange proposes to expand upon the
term interest by adopting the defined terms ``Priority Customer
Interest'' for Priority Customer Orders and Improvement Orders from
Priority Customers, and ``Professional Interest'' for Professional
Orders, Improvement Orders from non-Priority Customers, and Market
Maker quotes. The Exchange believes that adding these defined terms
would clarify what is meant by interest. As proposed, Professional
Interest identifies all orders (including Improvement Orders) that are
not for the account of a Priority Customer as well as Market Maker
quotes, thereby incorporating the current reference to ``Professional
Orders'' within its terms and eliminating the necessity to include the
current rule text which provides, ``any other interest of Members
(i.e., proprietary interest from Electronic Access Members and Exchange
market makers).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ISE Rule 100(a)(51) provides the term ``Professional
Order'' means an order that is for the account of a person or entity
that is not a Priority Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 723(d)(2) which currently
provides, ``After Priority Customer interest at a given price,
Professional Orders and Members' interest will participate in the
execution of the Agency Order based upon the percentage of the total
number of contracts available at the price that is represented by the
size of the Members' interest.'' The Exchange proposes to replace the
reference to ``Priority Customer interest'' with the defined term
``Priority Customer Interest'' proposed to be added in Rule 723(d)(1),
as described above. The Exchange also proposes to change ``Professional
Orders'' to ``Professional Interest'' which will be defined in Rule
723(d)(1) to include Professional Orders as well as Improvement Orders
from non-Priority Customers and Market Maker quotes. Since Professional
Interest is defined in this manner, the Exchange also proposes to
remove the language referring to ``Members' interest'' from the
sentence because Professional Interest would include all orders from
non-Priority Customers and Market Maker quotes.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 723(d)(3) to again remove the
rule text relating to ``Members' interest'' and instead utilize the
defined ``Professional Interest'' term consistent with proposed changes
to Rule 723(d)(1) and (2). The Exchange also proposes to make similar
changes to add the term ``Professional Interest'' to the sentence in
Rule 723(d)(3) that currently reads: ``Thereafter, all other orders,
Responses, and quotes at the price point will participate in the
execution of the Agency Order based upon the percentage of the total
number of contracts available at the price that is represented by the
size of the order, Response or quote.'' In particular, the language
related to ``other orders, Responses, and quotes'' in this sentence
will be replaced with ``Professional Interest'' since this term
includes all orders from non-Priority Customers and Market Maker
quotes, as described above. The Exchange notes that the references in
this sentence to ``Responses,'' currently an undefined term, should
instead refer to the defined term ``Improvement Orders,'' and the
proposed changes should therefore clarify how Rule 723(d)(3) will
apply. Finally, the Exchange proposes to replace the word ``Priority
Customer Orders'' with ``Priority Customer Interest'' as defined in
proposed Rule 723(d)(1) to clarify that those orders as well as
responses (i.e., Improvement Orders from Priority Customers) are
applicable. The proposed amendments add more specificity to the exact
order/quotes and responses which apply in this section.
    The amendments to Rule 723(d)(1)-(3) conform to the proposed
amendment to Rule 723(c)(2) and other proposed amendments as described
above which do not change the manner in which PIM operates today,
rather the other word changes seek to bring specificity to the

manner in which order, quotes and responses are treated.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Rule 723(c)(2) seeks to broaden
the types of orders that may be submitted as Improvement Orders into
PIM. As ISE previously noted, all Members are able to participate in a
PIM today as an unrelated order that rests on the Order Book. Unrelated
orders that rest on the Order Book can participate in PIM and trade
with the Agency Order in the PIM. The Exchange proposes to allow all
Members to submit Improvement Orders directly into PIM to provide an
even greater number of ISE Members to more directly participate in PIM
and provide price improvement. The Exchange's proposal is consistent
with the Act because allowing a greater number of Members to directly
respond with an Improvement Order in a PIM will increase the likelihood
of price improvement in that auction thereby removing impediments to
and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. This approach will enable greater participation in PIM
auctions.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Rule 723(d) conforms the text with
changes made with respect to the proposal to amend Rule 723(c)(2) for
consistency. The proposed changes to remove the more generic ``Members'
interest'' and instead substitute very specific terms to define
interest and add quotes provide more specificity as to the manner in
which interest entered into PIM will be allocated. The Exchange's
proposed amendments to Rule 723(d)(1)-(3) are consistent with the Act
because the amendments seek to conform the rule text to the proposed
Rule 723(c)(2) amendment and describe in greater detail how interest
will be allocated by defining terms and eligible interest and this
transparency benefits investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal to
amend Rule 723(c)(2) to broaden the types of orders that may be
submitted as Improvement Orders into PIM does not unduly burden
competition because all Members will be permitted to submit Improvement
Orders directly into PIM to provide an even greater number of ISE
Members to more directly participate in PIM. The amendments to Rule
723(d) will conform the rule text and bring clarity to the allocation
method for PIM.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \18\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \19\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that it
may allow all Members to submit Improvement Orders directly into PIM to
provide an even greater number of ISE Members an opportunity to more
directly participate in PIM and provide price improvement. The Exchange
states that it will issue an Options Trader Alert to notify Members of
the date within which this functionality will be implemented. The
Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly,
the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \20\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-62 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-62. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
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. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2018-62, and should be submitted on or before August 10, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15499 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P