[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24168-24171]
[DOCID:fr02my08-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0471; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-025-AD;
Amendment 39-15508; AD 2008-10-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company 172, 175, 180,
182, 185, 206, 207, 208, 210, and 303 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206,
207, 208, 210, and 303 series airplanes. This AD requires you to
inspect the alternate static air source selector valve to assure that
the part number identification placard does not obstruct the alternate
static air source selector valve port. If the part number
identification placard obstructs the port, this AD requires you to
remove the placard, assure that the port is unobstructed, and report to
the FAA if obstruction is found. This AD results from reports of
improper installation of the part number identification placard on the
alternate static air source selector valve. The actions specified by
this AD are intended to prevent erroneous indications from the
altimeter, airspeed, and vertical speed indicators, which could cause
the pilot to react to incorrect flight information and possibly result
in loss of control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on May 12, 2008.
    We must receive any comments on this AD by July 1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    To view the comments to this AD, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
The docket number is FAA-2008-0471; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-025-
AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Fairback, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We recently received reports of improper installation of the part
number identification placard on alternate static air source selector
valves of certain Cessna 172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 207, 208, 210,
and 303 series airplanes. The part number identification placard refers
to alternative air source selector valves, part number 2013142-18 that
were manufactured between November 20, 2007, and February 18, 2008. The
part number identification placard was installed on the valve body in a
location that covers the port, which is the inlet for static air
reference into the valve. The problem was discovered during a quality
control check.
    All parts held in stock at Cessna have been corrected. Cessna has
no way of verifying how many of these assemblies were manufactured and
sent to the field with the part number identification placard installed
over the alternate static air source selector valve port.
    We have no way of determining which airplanes have the remaining
problem alternate static air source selector valve assemblies installed
without having all of the affected airplanes and spares stock
inspected.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in the altimeter,
airspeed, and vertical speed indicators displaying erroneous
indications. This could cause the pilot to react to incorrect flight
information and possibly result in loss of control.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information and
determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist
or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires
inspecting the alternate static air source selector valve to assure
that the part number identification placard does not obstruct the
alternate static air source selector valve port. If the part number
identification obstructs the port, this AD requires you to remove the
placard, assure that the port is unobstructed, and report to the FAA if
obstruction is found.
    In preparing this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft
operators to get technical information and information on operational
and economic impacts. We have included a discussion of information that
may have influenced this action in the rulemaking docket.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
erroneous indications from

the altimeter, airspeed, and vertical speed indicators could cause the
pilot to react to incorrect flight information and possibly result in
loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity
for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that
good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30
days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and an opportunity for
public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views,
or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2008-0471;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-025-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive concerning this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket that contains the AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>)
is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-10-02 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-15508; Docket No.
FAA-2008-0471; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-025-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on May 12, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to airplanes listed in Table 1 and Table 2
of this AD that:
    (1) Have a part number (P/N) 2013142-18 alternate static air
source selector valve installed after November 19, 2007; and
    (2) Are certificated in any category:

    Table 1.--Applicability for Airplanes That Had the Affected Part
                        Installed at Manufacture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Model                         Serial Nos. (S/Ns)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172S..............................  172S10672 through 172S10674,
                                     172S10676, 172S10678 through
                                     172S10680, 172S10682, 172S10683,
                                     and 172S10685.
182T..............................  18282062 and 18282065.
T182T.............................  T18208822 and T18208828.
208...............................  20800417, 20800418, and 20800419.
208B..............................  208B1294 through 208B1310.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 1: Airplanes listed in Table 1 may have also had the
affected part installed as a replacement part.

 Table 2.--Applicability for Airplanes That Could Have Had the Affected
    Part Installed as a Replacement Part or From Parts Held as Spares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Model                                S/Ns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172...............................  All S/Ns.
172R..............................  All S/Ns beginning with 17280001.
172S..............................  172S8001 through 172S10671.
F172D.............................  All S/Ns.
F172E.............................  All S/Ns.
F172F.............................  All S/Ns.
F172G.............................  All S/Ns.
F172H.............................  All S/Ns.
F172K.............................  All S/Ns.
F172L.............................  All S/Ns.
F172M.............................  All S/Ns.
F172N.............................  All S/Ns.
F172P.............................  All S/Ns.
FR172E............................  All S/Ns.
FR172F............................  All S/Ns.
FR172G............................  All S/Ns.
FR172H............................  All S/Ns.
FR172J............................  All S/Ns.
FR172K............................  All S/Ns.
P172D.............................  All S/Ns.
R172E (USAF T-41B) (USAF T-41C and  All S/Ns.
 D).
R172F (USAF T-41).................  All S/Ns.
R172G (USAF T-41C or D)...........  All S/Ns.
R172H (USAF T-41D)................  All S/Ns.
R172J.............................  All S/Ns.
R172K.............................  All S/Ns.
172RG.............................  All S/Ns.

175...............................  All S/Ns.
180...............................  All S/Ns.
182...............................  All S/Ns.
182S..............................  18280001 through 18280944.
182T..............................  18280945 through 18282061.
R182..............................  All S/Ns.
T182..............................  All S/Ns.
TR182.............................  All S/Ns.
T182T.............................  T18208001 through T18208821.
F182P.............................  All S/Ns.
F182Q.............................  All S/Ns.
FR182.............................  All S/Ns.
185...............................  All S/Ns.
206...............................  All S/Ns.
206H..............................  All S/Ns beginning with 20608001.
P206..............................  All S/Ns.
U206..............................  All S/Ns.
T206H.............................  All S/Ns beginning with T20608001.
TU206A............................  All S/Ns.
TU206B............................  All S/Ns.
TU206C............................  All S/Ns.
TU206D............................  All S/Ns.
TU206E............................  All S/Ns.
TU206F............................  All S/Ns.
TU206G............................  All S/Ns
207...............................  All S/Ns.
208...............................  20800001 through 20800416.
208B..............................  208B0001 through 208B1293.
210...............................  All S/Ns.
210-5 (205).......................  All S/Ns.
T210F.............................  All S/Ns.
T210G.............................  All S/Ns.
T210H.............................  All S/Ns.
T210J.............................  All S/Ns.
T210K.............................  All S/Ns.
T210L.............................  All S/Ns.
T210M.............................  All S/Ns.
T210N.............................  All S/Ns.
T210R.............................  All S/Ns.
T303..............................  All S/Ns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 2: P/N 2013142-18 replaced P/Ns 2013142-9, -13, and -17.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD is the result of reports of improper installation of
the part number identification placard on the alternate static air
source selector valve. We are issuing this AD to prevent erroneous
indications from the altimeter, airspeed, and vertical speed
indicators, which could cause the pilot to react to incorrect flight
information and possibly result in loss of control.

Compliance

    (e) For all affected airplanes, to address this problem, you
must do the following, unless already done:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Actions                             Compliance                            Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Inspect the alternate static air  (i) For static air source selector    (A) Adjust the pilot and copilot
 source selector valve to assure       valves installed before May 12,       seats as far aft as possible.
 that the part number identification   2008 (The effective date of this     (B) Use a flashlight and mirror to
 placard is not obstructing the        AD): Before further flight after      inspect the alternate static air
 port.                                 May 12, 2008 (the effective date of   source selector valve to assure the
                                       this AD), and                         port on the forward end of the
                                      (ii) For static air source selector    valve is clearly visible and not
                                       valves installed as modification or   covered by the part number
                                       replacement parts on or after May     identification placard.
                                       12, 2008 (the effective date of
                                       this AD): Before further flight
                                       after installation of a P/N 2013142-
                                       18 alternate static air source
                                       selector valve. Inspection of the
                                       part before installation is
                                       acceptable.
(2) If the alternate static air       Before further flight after any       Make an entry in the aircraft
 source selector valve port is found   inspection required in paragraph      records showing compliance with
 obstructed by the part number         (e)(1) of this AD where the port is   this portion of the AD following 14
 identification placard during any     found obstructed.                     CFR 43.9.
 inspection required by paragraph
 (e)(1) of this AD, remove the
 placard from the valve body,
 discard the placard, and assure
 that the port is open and
 unobstructed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Report the results of the inspection required by this AD
where an obstruction was found to the FAA.
    (1) Submit this report within 10 days after the inspection or 10
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) Use the form in Figure 1 of this AD and submit it to FAA,
Manufacturing Inspection District Office, Mid-Continent Airport,
1804 Airport Road, Room 101, Wichita, Kansas, 67209; or fax to (316)
946-4189.
    (3) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the
information collection requirements contained in this regulation
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY08.045

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to:
Attn: David Fairback, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801
Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-
4154; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 28, 2008.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-9719 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3790-3794]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01356]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82541; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Exchange Rule 7047

January 19, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 9, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 7047 to reflect
substantial enhancements to Nasdaq Basic since the current distribution
fees were set in 2009. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify
distribution fees, currently set at $1,500 for both internal and
external distribution, into separate fees of $2,000 per month for
external (or external and internal) distribution and $1,500 per month
for internal-only distribution. The proposal is described in further
detail below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.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
    The Exchange proposes to adjust the fee schedule for Nasdaq Basic
to reflect substantial enhancements to the product since the current
distribution fees were set in 2009.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to amend the distribution fees for Nasdaq Basic at Rule 7047,
currently set at $1,500 for both internal and external distribution,
into separate fees of $2,000 per month for external (or external and
internal) distribution and $1,500 per month for internal-only
distribution.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59244 (January 13,
2009), 74 FR 4065 (January 22, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-102). The
initial proposal included separate distribution fees for securities
listed with other exchanges, which were removed in Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59712 (April 6, 2009), 74 FR 17273 (April
14, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-028). SR-NASDAQ-2009-028 also added a
credit for user fees, which was removed in Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 78578 (August 15, 2016), 81 FR 55513 (August 19, 2016)
(SR-NASDAQ-2016-109).
    \4\ Distribution fees for Nasdaq Last Sale (``NLS'') set forth
at Rule 7039(c) shall remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nasdaq Basic
    Nasdaq Basic is a real-time market data product that offers Best
Bid and Offer and Last Sale information for all U.S. exchange-listed
securities based on liquidity within the Nasdaq Market Center and
trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (``TRF'').
It is a subset of the ``core'' quotation and last sale data provided by
securities information processors (``SIPs'') under the CTA Plan and the
Nasdaq UTP Plan. Nasdaq Basic is separated into three components, which
may be purchased individually or in combination: (i) Nasdaq Basic for
Nasdaq, which contains the best bid and offer on the Nasdaq Market
Center and last sale transaction reports for Nasdaq and the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF for Nasdaq-listed stocks; (ii) Nasdaq Basic for NYSE, which
covers NYSE-listed stocks, and (iii) Nasdaq Basic for NYSE American
(formerly NYSE MKT), which provides data on stocks listed on NYSE
American and other listing venues whose quotes and trade reports are
disseminated on Tape B. The specific data elements available through
Nasdaq Basic are: (i) Nasdaq Basic Quotes (``QBBO''), the best bid and
offer and associated size available in the Nasdaq Market Center, as
well as last sale transaction reports; (ii) Nasdaq opening and closing
prices, as well as IPO and trading halt crosses; and (iii) general
exchange information, including systems status reports, trading halt
information, and a stock directory.
    Each Distributor of Nasdaq Basic, or Derived Data therefrom,
currently pays $1,500 per month for either internal or external
distribution or both,\5\ in addition to user fees set forth under Rule
7047(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 7047(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change
    Nasdaq Basic is one of a number of market information services
offered by the Exchange. Such services are inextricably connected to
trade execution: Market information services require trade orders to
provide useful information, and investors utilize market information to
make trading decisions. Over the eight years that have elapsed since
the current distribution fees were set in 2009,\6\ the Exchange has
invested in an array of upgrades to both its trade execution and market
information services, which have increased the value of these services
overall, and Nasdaq Basic in particular.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59712 (April 6,
2009), 74 FR 17273 (April 14, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-028).
    \7\ Many of these upgrades are common to several Nasdaq-
affiliated exchanges, as improvements to the products and services
of one exchange are reproduced in other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adjust its fee schedule for Nasdaq Basic
to reflect the value of the many improvements to the product, which
include:
     Enhanced Services. In 2014, the Exchange enhanced the
Nasdaq Basic data feed by: (i) Converting to binary codes to make more
efficient use of bandwidth and to provide greater timestamp
granularity; (ii) adding a symbol directory message to identify a
security and its key characteristics; (iii) adding a new IPO message
for Nasdaq-listed securities for quotation release time and IPO price;
and (iv) adding the Market Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'') Decline
Level message to inform recipients of the setting for MWCB breach
points for the trading day, and an MWCB Status Level Message to inform
data recipients when an MWCB has breached an established level.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dtn2013-45 and http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dtn2013-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Nanosecond Granularity. In 2016 [sic], Nasdaq introduced a
new version of Nasdaq Last Sale which allowed for timestamp granularity
to the nanosecond.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dtn2016-03.

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

     Exchange Traded Managed Funds (``ETMFs''). In 2015, the
Exchange modified the data feed for Nasdaq Basic to accommodate an
ETMF, a type of investment vehicle that combines the features of an
open-end mutual fund and an Exchange Traded Fund (``ETF'') to support
an actively managed-investment strategy.\10\ ETMF trading differs from
other types of equity trading in that it uses a trading protocol called
``Net Asset Value-Based Trading,'' in which all bids, offers, and
execution prices are expressed as a premium or discount to the ETMF's
next-determined Net Asset Value (``NAV''). This distinct pricing format
requires an entirely new set of data fields in which to distribute
information related to prices and trades, and the Exchange modified
Nasdaq Basic to accommodate that format.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73562 (November 7,
2014), 79 FR 68309 (November 14, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-020)
(approving the listing and trading of Exchange-Traded Managed Fund
Shares).
    \11\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dtn2015-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Qualified Contingent Trade Modifier. In 2015, Nasdaq
introduced a new field to Nasdaq Basic to identify a Qualified
Contingent Trades [sic] (``QCT''),\12\ a transaction consisting of two
or more component orders executed as agent or principal where the
execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
other components at or near the same time, and the price is determined
by the relationship between the component orders and not the current
market price for the security.\13\ The additional field identifies
whether a particular transaction is part of a QCT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dtn2015-24.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31,
2006), 71 FR 52829 (September 7, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Adjusted Closing Price. In 2013, Nasdaq introduced the
adjusted closing price as a field to reflect a security's previous day
official closing price, adjusted for corporate actions. For Nasdaq-
listed securities, the Nasdaq Official Closing Price is used,\14\ and
the consolidated close from the security's listing exchange is used for
non-Nasdaq securities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Nasdaq's closing cross process produces a tradable closing
price that represents either the closing cross or the best available
price at the time of the transaction.
    \15\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dtn2013-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     New System Event Messages. In 2013, Nasdaq began
disseminating event messages to indicate the start and end of system
hours.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dtn2013-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geographic Diversity. In 2015, all of the Nasdaq Exchanges
moved their Disaster Recover [sic] (``DR'') center from Ashburn,
Virginia, to Chicago, Illinois. As a result, customers can both receive
market data and send orders through the Chicago facility, potentially
reducing overall networking costs. Adding such geographic diversity
helps protect the market in the event of a catastrophic event impacting
the entire East Coast.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dtn2015-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chicago ``B'' Feeds. In 2017, all of the Nasdaq exchanges
added a multicast IP address for proprietary equity and options data
feeds in Chicago, allowing firms the choice of having additional
redundancy to ensure data continuity.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dtn2017-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While these changes were being implemented, distributor fees for
Nasdaq Basic were falling in real terms as a result of inflation.
Indeed, the proposed fee increase is partially offset by inflation,\19\
and represents only an approximately 3.7 percent annual increase
between 2009 and 2017. The Exchange believes that the remaining
percentage increase over inflation is more than justified by the
substantial upgrades described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Consumer Price Index indicates that prices increased
approximately 17 percent between January 2009 and November 2017. See
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of these upgrades, the Exchange proposes to separate
the internal and external distribution fees for Nasdaq Basic,
increasing external (and combined internal and external) distribution
fees from $1,500 to $2,000 per month, and leaving internal distribution
fees unchanged. Given these specific enhancements to Nasdaq Basic, and
to the Exchange's system generally, and given the fact that the
Exchange has not increased the distributor fees since 2009, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fee increase is appropriate.
    Nasdaq Basic is optional in that the Exchange is not required to
offer it and broker-dealers are not required to purchase it. Firms can
discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including an assessment
of the fees charged.
    The proposed change does not change the cost of any other Exchange
product.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') revenues
and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\23\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\24\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \24\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \25\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to separate the internal and external
distribution fees for Nasdaq Basic, increasing external (and combined
internal and

external) distribution fees from $1,500 to $2,000 per month, and
leaving internal distribution fees unchanged. The Exchange believes
that the proposed fee increase is reasonable. While the Exchange has
not increased such fees since 2009, the Exchange has added a number of
enhancements since that time to Nasdaq Basic and the Exchange systems
that support it. These enhancements, which are described in greater
detail above, increase the value of Nasdaq Basic. The proposed fee
increase is therefore reflective of, and closely aligned to, these
enhancements and the corresponding increased value of the data feed.
    The proposed changes are equitable allocations of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges because the Exchange makes all services and
products subject to these fees available on a non-discriminatory basis
to similarly-situated recipients, and the proposed fee increase here
will apply equally to all members that are external (or combined
internal and external) Distributors. As noted above, the Exchange has
made a number of product and system enhancements to Nasdaq Basic, and,
while internal Distributors have also received the benefit of these
enhancements, the Exchange is not increasing the fee for internal
Distributors at this time. This distinction is not unreasonable because
a higher fee for external, as opposed to internal, distribution is
based on the observation that external distributors typically charge
fees for external distribution, while internal distributors usually do
not. As such, external distributors have the opportunity to derive
greater value from such distribution, and that greater value is
reflected in higher external distribution fees. The differential
between external and internal distribution fees is well-recognized in
the financial services industry as a reasonable distinction, and has
been repeatedly accepted by the Commission as an equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees and other charges.\27\ The Act does not
prohibit all distinctions among customers, but rather discrimination
that is unfair. As the Commission has recognized, ``[i]f competitive
forces are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges themselves
will work powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair behavior.''
\28\ Accordingly, ``the existence of significant competition provides a
substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee
proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or
unfairly discriminatory.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Rules 7019 (Market Data Distributor Fees);
7022(c) (Short Interest Report); 7023(c) (Enterprise License Fees
for Depth-of-Book Data); and 7052(c) (Distributor Fees for Nasdaq
Daily Short Volume and Monthly Short Sale Transaction Files).
    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-
dealers (``BDs'') increased authority and flexibility to offer new and
unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority
would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur
innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The
Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the market in
proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating
efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 29,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').

    The Commission was speaking to the question of whether BDs should
be subject to a regulatory requirement to purchase data, such as depth-
of-book data, that is in excess of the data provided through the
consolidated tape feeds, and the Commission concluded that the choice
should be left to them. Accordingly, Regulation NMS removed unnecessary
regulatory restrictions on the ability of exchanges to sell their own
data, thereby advancing the goals of the Act and the principles
reflected in its legislative history. If the free market should
determine whether proprietary data is sold to BDs at all, it follows
that the price at which such data is sold should be set by the market
as well. Accordingly, ``the existence of significant competition
provides a substantial basis for finding that the terms of an
exchange's fee proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees, like all market data fees, are constrained by
the Exchange's need to compete for order flow, as discussed below, and
are subject to competition from other exchanges and among broker-
dealers for customers. If Nasdaq is incorrect in its assessment of
price, it may lose market share as a result.

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    Nasdaq Basic is a type of ``non-core'' data that provides a subset
of the core quotation and last sale data provided by securities
information processors under the CTA Plan and the Nasdaq UTP Plan. In
2016, an Administrative Law Judge in an application for review by the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association of actions taken
by Self-Regulatory Organizations examined whether another non-core
product, Depth-of-Book data, is constrained by competitive forces.\32\
After a four-day hearing and presentation of substantial evidence, the
administrative law judge stated that ``competition plays a significant
role in restraining exchange pricing of depth-of-book products'' \33\
because ``depth-of-book products from different exchanges function as
substitutes for each other,'' \34\ and, as such, ``the threat of
substitution from depth-of-book customers constrains

their depth-of-book prices.'' \35\ As a result, ``[s]hifts in order
flow and threats of shifting order flow provide a significant
competitive force in the pricing of . . . depth-of-book data.'' \36\
The judge concluded that ``[u]nder the standards articulated by the
Commission and D.C. Circuit, the Exchanges have shown that they are
subject to significant competitive forces in setting fees for depth-of-
book data: the availability of alternatives to the Exchanges' depth-of-
book products, and the Exchanges' need to attract order flow from
market participants constrains prices.'' \37\ As such, Nasdaq's depth-
of-book fees are ``constrained by significant competitive forces.''
\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association,
Initial Decision Release No. 1015, 2016 SEC LEXIS 2278 (A.L.J. June
1, 2016).
    \33\ Id. at 92.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id. at 93
    \36\ Id. at 104.
    \37\ Id. at 86.
    \38\ Id. at 120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example of the impact of market forces on the price of
proprietary data, the Exchange just last year lowered the Nasdaq Basic
Enterprise License fee for the distribution of certain information by
broker-dealers from $350,000 to $100,000.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79456 (December 2,
2016) 81 FR 88716 (December 8, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-162) (proposing
a fee decrease for an enterprise license for the distribution of
Nasdaq Basic to Non-Professional and Professional Subscribers with
whom the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market forces constrain the price of Nasdaq Basic, just as they do
other market data fees, in the competition among exchanges and other
entities to attract order flow and in the competition among
Distributors for customers. Order flow is the ``life blood'' of the
exchanges. Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues
for their order flow, including SRO markets, as well as internalizing
BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''),
including dark pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs'').
Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade
executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract
internalized transaction reports. The existence of fierce competition
for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part
of BDs, which may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the
lowest-cost trading venues.
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price, and distribution of its data
products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot
exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only
insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist
them or their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
trading execution and data products and the joint costs it incurs to
provide both.
    Moreover, the operation of the exchange is characterized by high
fixed costs and low marginal costs. This cost structure is common in
content and content distribution industries such as software, where
developing new software typically requires a large initial investment
(and continuing large investments to upgrade the software), but once
the software is developed, the incremental cost of providing that
software to an additional user is typically small, or even zero (e.g.,
if the software can be downloaded over the internet after being
purchased).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, ``The New
Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying
Defensible Criteria of Market Power,'' Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.
70, No. 3 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Nasdaq's case, it is costly to build and maintain a trading
platform, but the incremental cost of trading each additional share on
an existing platform, or distributing an additional instance of data,
is very low. Market information and executions are each produced
jointly (in the sense that the activities of trading and placing orders
are the source of the information that is distributed) and are each
subject to significant scale economies. In such cases, marginal cost
pricing is not feasible because if all sales were priced at the margin,
Nasdaq would be unable to defray its platform costs of providing the
joint products.
    An exchange's BD customers view the costs of transaction executions
and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A BD
will disfavor a particular exchange if the expected revenues from
executing trades on the exchange do not exceed net transaction
execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD
chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of
the product to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product
will contain less information, because executions of the BD's trading
activity will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more
important, the product will be less valuable to that BD because it does
not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its
orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is directing more
orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. Nasdaq pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively
low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high
prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free
of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their
costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing
opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge
lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint
offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price
for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in
lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm
will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse
to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price
of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the

cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will
fall.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Moreover, the level of competition and contestability in
the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that
compete for order flow, including SRO markets, internalizing BDs and
various forms of ATSs, including dark pools and ECNs. Each SRO
market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions,
and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized
transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit
this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports
to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single
market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and
transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products. The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and
ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently
capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for
proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently
permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently
do or have announced plans to do so, including Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE
American, NYSE Arca, IEX, and Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes will separate the internal and external
distribution fees for Nasdaq Basic, increasing external distribution
fees from $1,500 to $2,000 per month, and leaving internal distribution
fees unchanged. The proposed price changes will not impose any burden
on competition because external distributors typically charge fees for
external distribution, and thereby usually derive greater value from
such distribution than internal distributors, which typically do not
charge fees, and that greater value supports higher external
distribution fees. This distinction between external and internal
distribution fees is common in the financial services industry, and has
been applied to other products without any anti-competitive effect. As
explained, these fees will become one aspect of the total cost of
interacting with the Exchange, and if these total costs prove to be
excessive, the Exchange will lose revenue as a result. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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-NASDAQ-2018-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-004. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-004 and should be submitted
on or before February 16, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01356 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16630-16632]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05923]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 35

[EPA-R09-0AR-2013-0052; FRL-9788-5]

Clean Air Act Grant: South Coast Air Quality Management District;
Opportunity for Pubic Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed action; determination with request for comments and
notice of opportunity for public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. EPA has made a proposed determination that the
reduction in expenditures of non-Federal funds for the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in support of its continuing air
program under section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), for the calendar
year 2012 is a result of non-selective reductions in expenditures. This
determination, when final, will permit the SCAQMD to receive grant
funding for FY 2013 from the EPA, under section 105 of the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: Comments and/or requests for a public hearing must be received
by EPA at the address stated below by April 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0052, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    3. Mail: Gary Lance (Air-8), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Lance, EPA Region IX, Grants &
Program Integration Office, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
address at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provides grant support for the continuing air programs of eligible
state, local, and tribal agencies. In accordance with 40 CFR 35.145(a),
the Regional Administrator may provide air pollution control agencies
up to three-fifths of the approved costs of implementing programs for
the prevention and control of air pollution. Section 105 contains two
cost-sharing provisions which recipients must meet to qualify for a CAA
section 105 grant. An eligible entity must meet a minimum 40% match. In
addition, to remain eligible for section 105 funds, an eligible entity
must continue to meet the minimum match requirement as well as meet a
maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement under section 105(c)(1) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405.
    Program activities relevant to the match consist of both recurring
and non-recurring (unique,one-time only) expenses. The MOE provision
requires that a state or local agency spend at least the same dollar
level of funds as it did in the previous grant year, but only for the
costs of recurring activities. Specifically, section 105(c)(1), 42
U.S.C. 7405(c)(1), provides that ``No agency shall receive any grant
under this section during any fiscal year when its expenditures of non-
Federal funds for recurrent expenditures for air pollution control
programs will be less than its expenditures were for such programs
during the preceding fiscal year.'' Pursuant to CAA section 105(c)(2),
however, EPA may still award a grant to

an agency not meeting the requirements of section 105(c)(1), ``if the
Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing,
determines that a reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-
selective reduction in the expenditures in the programs of all
Executive branch agencies of the applicable unit of Government.'' These
statutory requirements are repeated in EPA's implementing regulations
at 40 CFR 35.140-35.148. EPA issued additional guidance to recipients
on what constitutes a nonselective reduction on September 30, 2011. In
consideration of legislative history, the guidance clarified that a
non-selective reduction does not necessarily mean that each Executive
branch agency need be reduced in equal proportion. However, it must be
clear to EPA, from the weight of evidence, that a recipient's CAA-
related air program is not being disproportionately impacted or singled
out for a reduction.
    A section 105 recipient must submit a final financial status report
no later than 90 days from the close of its grant period that documents
all of its federal and non-federal expenditures for the completed
period. The recipient seeking an adjustment to its MOE for that period
must provide the rationale and the documentation necessary to enable
EPA to make a determination that a nonselective reduction has occurred.
In order to expedite that determination, the recipient must provide
details of the budget action and the comparative fiscal impacts on all
the jurisdiction's executive branch agencies, the recipient agency
itself, and the agency's air program. The recipient should identify any
executive branch agencies or programs that should be excepted from
comparison and explain why. The recipient must provide evidence that
the air program is not being singled out for a reduction or being
disproportionately reduced. Documentation in two key areas will be
needed: Budget data specific to the recipient's air program and
comparative budget data between the recipient's air program, the agency
containing the air program, and the other executive branch agencies.
EPA may also request information from the recipient about how impacts
on its program operations will affect its ability to meet its CAA
obligations and requirements; and documentation which explains the
cause of the reduction, such as legislative changes or the issuance of
a new executive order.
    In FY2012, EPA awarded the SCAQMD $5,234,193, which represented
approximately 5% of the SCAQMD budget. In FY-2013, EPA will award the
SCAQMD an estimate of $4,538,613, which represents approximately 4% of
the SCAQMD budget.
    SCAQMD's final Federal Financial Report for FY-2011 indicated that
SCAQMD's maintenance of effort (MOE) level was $113,142,559. SCAQMD's
final Federal Financial Report for FY-2012 indicates that SCAQMD's
maintenance of effort (MOE) level is at $108,291,832.
    The projected MOE is not sufficient to meet the MOE requirements
under the CAA section 105 because it is not equal to or greater than
the MOE for the previous fiscal year. In order for the SCAQMD to be
eligible to receive its FY2013 CAA section 105 grant, EPA must make a
determination (after notice and an opportunity for a public hearing)
that the reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-selective
reduction in the expenditures in the programs of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District. The shortfall stems from a decline of
12.4% in stationary sources revenue from FY2008-09 to FY-2011-12 as
reflected in the table below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MR13.000

    The SCAQMD is a single-purpose agency whose primary source of
funding is emission fee revenue. It is the ``unit of government for
section 105(c)(2) purposes.''
    The decline in stationary source revenues would have been even more
pronounced had it not been for the SCAQMD Governing Board-adopted fee
increases totaling 5.9% over the last three years. The net loss of
stationary revenues has given SCAQMD no choice but to reduce its budget
and find less costly ways to meet its mandate. Over the past several
years actions were undertaken by SCAQMD to balance its budget by
reducing overall expenditures, including deleting or not funding vacant
positions, implementing a hiring freeze, enacting pension reform,
reducing services and supplies expenditures, and utilizing reserves.
    Since FY2009-10, SCAQMD has supplemented revenues with $18.5
million in reserves to balance the budget and meet program
requirements.
    In addition to the conditions described above, an increase in
expenditures relating to permitting activities under Title V of CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7661-7661-f and an increase in non-recurrent capital
expenditures in the amount of $1,406,240 have resulted in a reduction
in the non-federal share which also contributed to a decrease in the
FY12 MOE level.
    Based on: (1) SCAQMD's inability to levy taxes, (2) regulated and
voluntary emissions reductions, (3) the general economic downturn, (4)
voter approval of Proposition 26, (5) an overall decline in stationary
source revenue, (6) expenditure cuts, (7) use of financial reserves to
balance the budget, (8)increased Title V permitting activities, and (9)
an increase in non-recurrent capital expenditures, the request for a
reset of SCAQMD's MOE meets the criteria for a non-selective reduction
determination.
    Although SCAQMD receives less than 5 percent of its support from
the section 105 grant, the loss of that funding would seriously impact
SCAQMD's ability to carry out its clean air program. The revenue
generated from Stationary Sources over the last 10 years is detailed
below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Stationary
                          Year                              sources (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003....................................................      62,835,710
2004....................................................      61,461,482
2005....................................................      64,613,635
2006....................................................      68,483,189
2007....................................................      75,200,253
2008....................................................      82,800,004
2009....................................................      91,472,243

2010....................................................      81,097,647
2011....................................................      78,787,371
2012....................................................      79,815,562
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCAQMD's MOE reduction resulted from a loss of revenues due to
circumstances beyond its control. EPA proposes to determine that the
SCAQMD lower the FY2012 MOE level to $108,291,832 to meet the CAA
section 105(c)(2) criteria as resulting from a non-selective reduction
of expenditures.
    This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an
opportunity for public hearing as required by the Clean Air Act. All
written comments received by April 17, 2013 on this proposal will be
considered. EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only if
a written request for such is received by EPA at the address above by
April 17, 2013. If no written request for a hearing is received, EPA
will proceed to the final determination. While notice of the final
determination will not be published in the Federal Register, copies of
the determination can be obtained by sending a written request to Gary
Lance at the above address.

    Dated: March 6, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-05923 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 45)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10687-10688]
[DOCID:fr09mr10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1017]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Areas; Bars Along the Coasts of Oregon and
Washington; Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a document in the Federal Register
on November 17, 2009, adding a section and establishing regulated
navigation areas for bars along the coasts of Oregon and Washington.
That document inadvertently failed to include an option for mariners to
use VHF-FM Channel 16 for notifying the Coast Guard, and also contained
typographical errors improperly describing VHF-FM Channel 16 and a
position of latitude. This document corrects the final regulations.

DATES: Effective March 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this

correction, call or e-mail LT Matthew N. Jones, Staff Attorney,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
Accordingly, 33 CFR part 165 is amended by making the following
correcting amendment:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and
160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.1325, revise paragraphs (a)(12) and the first sentence
in each of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(3)(ii) introductory text,
(c)(4)(iii) introductory text, and (c)(5)(ii) introductory text to read
as follows:

Sec.  165.1325  Regulated Navigation Areas; Bars Along the Coasts of
Oregon and Washington.

    (a) * * *
    (12) Umpqua River Bar, Oreg.: From a point on the shoreline at
43[deg]41[min]20[sec] N., 124[deg]11'58'' W. thence westward to
43[deg]41[min]20[sec] N., 124[deg]13[min]32[sec] W. thence southward to
43[deg]38[min]35[sec] N., 24[deg]14[min]25[sec] W. thence eastward to a
point on the shoreline at 43[deg]38[min]35[sec] N.,
124[deg]12[min]35[sec] W. thence northward along the shoreline to light
``8[sec] at 43[deg]40[min]57[sec] N., 124[deg]11[min]13[sec] W. thence
southwestward to a point on the west bank of the entrance channel at
43[deg]40[min]52[sec] N., 124[deg]11[min]34[sec] W. thence
southwestward along the west bank of the entrance channel thence
northward along the seaward shoreline to the beginning.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The Coast Guard will notify the public of bar restrictions
and bar closures via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF-FM Channel
16 and 22A. * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The master or operator of any uninspected passenger vessel
operating in a regulated navigation area established in paragraph (a)
of this section during the conditions described in paragraph
(c)(3)(i)(A) of this section shall contact the Coast Guard on VHF-FM
Channel 16 or 22A prior to crossing the bar between sunset and sunrise.
* * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) The master or operator of any small passenger vessel
operating in a regulated navigation area established in paragraph (a)
of this section during the conditions described in paragraph
(c)(4)(i)(A) of this section shall contact the Coast Guard on VHF-FM
Channel 16 or 22A prior to crossing the bar between sunset and sunrise.
* * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) The master or operator of any commercial fishing vessel
operating in a regulated navigation area established in paragraph (a)
of this section during the conditions described in paragraph
(c)(5)(i)(A) of this section shall contact the Coast Guard on VHF-FM
Channel 16 or 22A prior to crossing the bar between sunset and sunrise.
* * *
* * * * *

    Dated: February 17, 2010.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2010-4769 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18855-18856]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2007-0008]

National Advisory Council; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Open Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National
Advisory Council (NAC) will meet in person on May 22-24, 2018, in San
Diego, CA. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The NAC will meet Tuesday, May 22, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Wednesday, May 23, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and
Thursday, May 24, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight
Time (PDT). Please note that the meeting may close early if the NAC has
completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Hyatt Regency Mission Bay
(https://missionbay.regency.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html) located at
1441 Quivira Road, San Diego, CA 92109. It is recommended that
attendees register with FEMA by May 18, 2018, by providing their name,
telephone number, email address, title, and organization to the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below.
    For information on facilities or services for people with
disabilities and others with access and functional needs (including
people who use mobility aids, require medication or portable medical
equipment, use service animals, need information in alternate formats,
or rely on personal assistance services), or to request assistance at
the meeting, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT below as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by
the NAC. The ``Agenda'' section below outlines these issues. The full
agenda and any related documents for this meeting will be posted by
Friday, May 18, 2018, on the NAC website at http://www.fema.gov/national-advisory-council. Written comments must be submitted and
received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on May 18, 2018, identified
by Docket ID FEMA-2007-0008, and submitted by one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please include a cover sheet
addressing the fax to ATTN: Deana Platt.
     Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief
Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW, Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the words ``Federal
Emergency Management Agency'' and the docket number for this action.
Comments received, including any personal information provided, will be
posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received by the
NAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and search for Docket ID FEMA-
2007-0008.
    A public comment period will be held on Wednesday, May 23, 2018,
from 1:00 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. PDT. All speakers must limit their comments
to 5 minutes. Comments should be addressed to the NAC. Any comments not
related to the agenda topics will not be considered by the NAC. To
register to make remarks during the public comment period, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by May 18,
2018. Please note that the public comment period may end before the
time indicated, following the last call for comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deana Platt, Designated Federal
Officer, Office of the National Advisory Council, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472-3184,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email [email protected]. The NAC website is: http://www.fema.gov/national-advisory-council.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
    The NAC advises the FEMA Administrator on all aspects of emergency
management. The NAC incorporates input from State, local, and Tribal
governments, and the private sector in the development and revision of
FEMA plans and strategies. The NAC includes a cross-section of
officials, emergency managers, and emergency response providers from
State, local, and Tribal governments, the private sector, and
nongovernmental organizations.
    Agenda: On Tuesday, May 22, 2018, the NAC will hear about
priorities across FEMA Regions from the Region IX team and receive
briefings on response and recovery, protection and national
preparedness, and the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
Subcommittee to the NAC.
    On Wednesday, May 23, 2018, the NAC will hear an update on flood
insurance and mitigation and a separate update on strategic priorities
from the FEMA Administrator. The three permanent and one ad-hoc NAC
subcommittees (Federal Insurance and Mitigation Subcommittee,
Preparedness and Protection Subcommittee, Response and Recovery
Subcommittee, and Tribal Subcommittee) will discuss and deliberate on
their potential recommendations and, if appropriate, vote on
recommendations for the FEMA Administrator. Potential recommendation
topics include (1) building a culture of preparedness, (2) simplifying
recovery programs, and (3) promoting pre-disaster mitigation.
    On Thursday, May 24, 2018, the NAC will review potential topics for
research before the next in-person meeting, discuss recent disasters,
review agreed upon recommendations, and confirm charges for the
subcommittees.
    The full agenda and any related documents for this meeting will be
posted by Friday, May 18, 2018, on the NAC website at http://www.fema.gov/national-advisory-council.

    Dated: April 24, 2018.
Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-09075 Filed 4-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-48-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 50046]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Membership in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group
Aviation Rulemaking Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National
Park Service (NPS) are inviting interested persons to apply to fill one
upcoming opening on the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group
(NPOAG) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The upcoming opening will
represent commercial air tour operator interests. The selected member
will serve a 3-year term.

DATES: Persons interested in applying for the NPOAG opening
representing air tour operator interests need to apply by August 26,
2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, Special Programs Staff,
Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters,
P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181. The Act required the
establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment.
The NPOAG was established in March 2001. The advisory group is
comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general aviation,
commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native
American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS
(or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group.
Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-
year terms as chairman of the advisory group.
    In accordance with the Act, the advisory group provides ``advice,
information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the
Director--
    (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the
amendments made by this title;
    (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in
commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands,
which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour
management plan;
    (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the
interests of visitors to national parks; and
    (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over a national park or tribal lands.''

Membership

    The NPOAG ARC is made up of one member representing general
aviation, three members representing the commercial air tour industry,
four members representing environmental concerns, and two members
representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG
ARC are as follows:
    The current NPOAG consists of Melissa Rudinger representing general
aviation; Alan Stephen, Mark Francis, and Matthew Zuccaro representing
commercial air tour operators; Rob Smith, Nicholas Miller, Mark Belles,
and Dick Hingson representing environmental interests; and Leigh
Kuwanwisiwma and Martin Begaye representing Native American interests.
Mr. Zuccaro's 3-year membership expires on September 9, 2016.

Selection

    In order to retain balance within the NPOAG ARC, the FAA and NPS
are seeking candidates interested in filling Mr. Zuccaro's soon to be
expiring seat. The open seat to be filled will represent air tour
operator interests. The FAA and NPS invite persons interested in
representing air tour operator interests on the ARC to contact Mr.
Keith Lusk (contact information is written above in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests to serve on the ARC must be made to Mr.
Lusk in writing and postmarked or emailed on or before August 26, 2016.
The request should indicate whether or not you are a member of an
association or firm related to the air tour industry.. The request
should also state what expertise you would bring to the NPOAG ARC as
related to issues and concerns with aircraft flights over national
parks. The term of service for NPOAG ARC members is 3 years. Current
members may re-apply for another term.
    On June 18, 2010, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum
directing agencies in the Executive Branch not to appoint or re-appoint
federally registered lobbyists to advisory committees and other boards
and commissions. Therefore, before appointing an applicant to serve on
the NPOAG, the FAA and NPS will require the prospective candidate to
certify that they are not a federally registered lobbyist.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA, on July 19, 2016.
Keith Lusk,
Program Manager, Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-17564 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 42018]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15323]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78144; File No. SR-ICC-2016-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Revise the ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and
Procedures

June 23, 2016.
    On April 22, 2016, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to ICC's End-of-
Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures (the ``EOD Policy'') (File
No. SR-ICC-2016-007). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on May 11, 2016.\3\ To date, the
Commission has not received comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77771 (May 5, 2016),
81 FR 29309 (May 11, 2016) (SR-ICC-2016-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day from the publication of notice of filing of this proposed rule
change is June 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. ICC's proposed rule change would
modify the EOD Policy to apply firm trade notional limits to groups of
affiliated clearing members, rather than individual clearing members.
The Commission finds it is appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider ICC's proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) \5\ of
the Act, designates August 9, 2016 as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
ICC-2016-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15323 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

RE:  	Meeting with Henkel on the Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h)
List of Contents
 Meeting Summary
 Attendees

Meeting Summary

On July 12 2022, representatives from EPA met with Henkel to discuss comments submitted in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0598 on the Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h); Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1); Compliance Date Extension, published March 8, 2022. During the meeting, Henkel discussed their use of PIP (3:1) under two uses excluded from the prohibition in the rule; as an intermediate in a closed system to produce cyanoacrylate adhesives, and in new and replacement parts for motor and aerospace vehicles. Henkel presented that most of their use of PIP (3:1) is as an intermediate in a closed system to produce cyanoacrylate adhesives, and gave an overview of their facility processes, engineering controls, and worker protection measures. Additionally, Henkel presented on their use of PIP (3:1) in motor and aerospace vehicles, which they stated is a smaller fraction of their business compared to adhesives. Henkel discussed how PIP (3:1) is used in wire insulation and devices used for military and medical applications. EPA gave an overview of the TSCA section 6(h) rulemaking activities to date. Henkel indicated they would continue engaging with the EPA rulemaking process, specifically on details of worker protections for PIP (3:1) use in a closed system to produce cyanoacrylate adhesives.
Attendees
EPA:
Cindy Wheeler
Gabriela Rossner

Henkel:
Martina Werner
Senthil Pichandi
Gary Pierson
Rebecca Coons
Kevin McKenney