[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47422-47423]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22115]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0817; FRL-9967-09]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0817 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, P.E., Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
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:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petition described in this document contains data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of
the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA
intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted.
Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination
on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
    PP 5F8408. EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0817. OAT AGRIO CO., LTD., 1-3-1 Kanda
Ogawa-machi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0052, Japan, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of fungicide, flutianil (Z)-
2-[2-fluoro-5-(trifluoromethyl)phenylthio]-2-[3-(2-methoxyphenyl)-1,3-
thiazolidin-2-ylidene]acetonitrile, in or on apple at 0.15 parts per
million (ppm); apple, wet pomace at 0.30 ppm; cantaloupe at 0.07 ppm;
cherry at 0.4 ppm; cucumber at 0.20 ppm; grape at 0.70 ppm; squash at
0.05 ppm; and strawberry at 0.50 ppm. Additionally, OAT AGRIO Company
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
in 40 CFR part 180 for indirect or inadvertent residues of fungicide,
flutianil in or on all food commodities that do not have tolerances.
The gas chromatography-mass spectrometry detector (GC/MSD) is used to
measure and evaluate the chemical flutianil on apples, cantaloupe,
cherry, cucumber, squash, and strawberry. The high performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectral detection (LCMS/MS) is used to
measure and evaluate the chemical flutianil and the metabolite OC-56635
in grapes. Contact: RD.
    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9924-
00), EPA issued a document pursuant to

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of
a pesticide petition (PP 5F8408) by OAT AGRIO Company requesting that
40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances on various
agricultural commodities for residues of the fungicide, flutianil. That
petition (PP 5F8408) has since been amended to also request an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for indirect or
inadvertent residues of all food commodities for which the EPA does not
have established tolerances. Additionally, several revisions were made
to both the commodity terminology and the tolerance level for certain
commodities.

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 346a.

     Dated: September 28, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-22115 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7388-7390]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0888; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-024-AD;
Amendment 39-17735; AD 2014-02-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl Model P2006T airplanes. This AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as cracks of the nose landing gear (NLG) lower
link. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 14, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 14,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Costruzioni
Aeronautiche Tecnam Airworthiness Office, Via Maiorise-81043 Capua (CE)
Italy; telephone: +39 0823 620134; fax:

+39 0823 622899; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: www.tecnam.com/it-IT/documenti/service-bulletins.aspx. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Costruzioni Aeronautiche
Tecnam srl Model P2006T airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63907). That NPRM proposed
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    During an inspection of a P2006T, a nose landing gear (NLG)
lower link was found with two cracks. The affected NLG lower link is
part of NLG lower link assembly P/N 26-8-1417-000.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to NLG
failure, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to
the occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Costruzioni
Aeronautiche Tecnam (hereafter referred to as Tecnam) issued Service
Bulletin (SB) SB-128-CS, providing inspection instructions. Tecnam
also developed an improved NLG lower link assembly with P/N 26-8-
8000-000, which can be installed in service by accomplishment of
Tecnam SB-104-CS.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires, for
aeroplanes equipped with NLG lower link assembly P/N 26-8-1417-000,
a one-time inspection of the NLG lower link and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective action. This
AD also requires installation of the improved NLG lower link
assembly P/N 26-8-8000-000.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FAA-2013-
0888;fp=true;ns=true.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 63907, October 25,
2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 63907, October 25, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 63907, October 25, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $297.50, or $42.50 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $1,800, for a cost on
U.S. operators of $16,170, or $2,310 per product. We have no way of
determining the number of products that may need these actions.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our 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.
    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 this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket 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 AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is 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, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2014-02-07 Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl: Amendment 39-17735;
Docket No. FAA-2013-0888; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-024-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 14,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl Model
P2006T airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 001/US through S/N 9999/US,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the
nose landing gear (NLG) lower link. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct cracks in an NLG lower link, which could lead to NLG
failure, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to
the occupants.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions as specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this AD:
    (1) For airplanes with an NLG lower link assembly part number
(P/N) 26-8-1417-000 installed, within the next 25 hours time-in-
service (TIS) after March 14, 2014 (the effective date of this AD)
or within the next 30 days after March 14, 2014 (the effective date
of this AD), whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection of the
NLG lower link P/N 26-8-1417-1 (this is in the NLG-000 assembly)
following Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No. SB
128-CS, Revision 0, dated May 15, 2013.
    (2) If a crack is detected during the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the NLG
lower link assembly with an improved assembly. Follow the
instructions in Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 442, P2006T
NLG upper link replacement, Revision 1, dated February 11, 2013;
Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 468, New NLG Spring
replacement, dated October 12, 2012; or Costruzioni Aeronautiche
Tecnam Job Card 528, P2006T NLG retraction spring installation,
Revision 1, dated April 2, 2013, as applicable, as specified in
Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No. SB 128-CS,
Revision 0, dated May 15, 2013.

    Note 1 to paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD:  Although
Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 442, Revision 1, dated
February 11, 2013, is designated P2006T NLG upper link replacement,
it still pertains to the replacement of the lower link.

    (3) Unless already done as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this
AD, within the next 50 hours TIS after March 14, 2014 (the effective
date of this AD) or within the next 60 days after March 14, 2014
(the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace the
NLG lower link assembly P/N 26-8-1417-000 with an improved assembly.
Follow the instructions in Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card
442, P2006T NLG upper link replacement, Revision 1, dated February
11, 2013; Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 468, New NLG
Spring replacement, dated October 12, 2012; or Costruzioni
Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 528, P2006T NLG retraction spring
installation, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2013, as applicable, as
specified in the Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin
No. SB 128-CS, Revision 0, dated May 15, 2013.
    (4) After replacement of the NLG lower link assembly as required
by paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable, do not
install an NLG lower link assembly P/N 26-8-1417-000 or an NLG lower
link part P/N 26-8-1417-1 (this is in the NLG-000 assembly) on that
airplane.
    (5) For an airplane with an NLG lower link assembly P/N 26-8-
8000-000 already installed, after the effective date of this AD, do
not install an NLG lower link assembly P/N 26-8-1417-000 or a NLG
lower link P/N 26-8-1417-1 on that airplane.

(g) Credit for Actions Done Following Previous Service Information

    This AD provides credit for the inspection required in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD and any necessary replacement required in
paragraphs (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this AD if already done before March
14, 2014 (the effective date of this AD) following Costruzioni
Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No. SB 104-CS, Edition 2,
Revision 1, dated March 28, 2013.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, 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: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0134, dated July 2, 2013, for more information. The MCAI can be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0888-0003. You may
also refer to Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No.
SB 104-CS, Edition 2, Revision 1, dated March 28, 2013, for more
information. For service information related to this AD, you may
contact the manufacturer using the information found in paragraph
(j)(3) of this AD.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No. SB 128-
CS, Revision 0, dated May 15, 2013.

    Note 2 to paragraph (j)(2)(i) of this AD:  The Occurrence Report
is not paginated. The correct pagination is page 3/3.

    (ii) Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Cartone di lavoro (English
translation: Job Card) 468, New NLG Spring replacement, dated
October 12, 2012.

    Note 3 to paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) through (j)(2)(iv) of this AD:
This service information contains Italian to English translation.
EASA used the English translation in referencing the documents from
Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl. For enforceability purposes, we
will refer to the Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl service
information as the titles appear on the documents.

    (iii) Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Cartone di lavoro (English
translation: Job Card) 528, P2006T NLG retraction spring
installation, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2013.
    (iv) Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Cartone di lavoro (English
translation: Job Card) 442, P2006T NLG upper link replacement,
Revision 1, dated February 11, 2013.
    (3) For Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl service information
identified in this AD, contact Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam
Airworthiness Office, Via Maiorise-81043 Capua (CE) Italy;
telephone: +39 0823 620134; fax: +39 0823 622899; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
www.tecnam.com/it-IT/documenti/service-bulletins.aspx.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 23, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-01957 Filed 2-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Response to Public Comments Received in Response to the Interim
Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Formetanate Hydrochloride
(Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0032, DP Barcode 320463)

FROM:	David W. Brassard, Senior Entomologist

Biological Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		James Parker, Chemical Review Manager

		Laura Parsons, Team Leader

		Susan Lewis, Chief, Reregistration Branch 1

Special Review and Registration Division (7508P)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL DATE: 10/25/06

INTRODUCTION

This document represents BEAD’s responses to public comments on the
Agency’s proposed decisions published in the “Interim Reregistration
Eligibility Decision for Formetanate Hydrochloride” that were received
in the EPA docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0032).   Three organizations
submitted benefits related comments: California Citrus Mutual,
California Grape & Tree Fruit League, and the Northwest Horticultural
Council.  In general the commenters stated that the prohibition of
formetanate hydrochloride application by aircraft or in open cabs would
pose a hardship to growers.  None of the comments included
substantiating evidence regarding the effect that switching to closed
cabs or substituting alternative insecticides would have on crop yield,
quality, or grower revenues.

BEAD has not conducted an impacts assessment on the impacts of extending
restricted entry intervals or eliminating the use of open cab ground
equipment and aerial application from formetanate hydrochloride
labeling.  BEAD did conduct a preliminary qualitative alternatives
analysis.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Comment  “The continued availability of formetanate hydrochloride as a
tool for thrip control in citrus ensures acceptable fruit appearance for
exporting citrus to markets using a product with established MRLs  in
place.  Current label restrictions on timing of application and worker
reentry as well as limits on the amount that can be applied in a growing
season greatly narrow the window of use. Even so, Carzol SP remains a
valuable tool in the grower’s pesticide rotation.  Eliminating Carzol
SP would reduce grower’s options; require more applications of other
products increasing the risk of pest resistance and even more
applications of pesticide and disruption of growers IPM programs.”

“California Citrus Mutual on behalf of California citrus growers urges
the agency to

complete RED and approve the reregistration of formetanate
hydrochloride.” (California Citrus Mutual, 2006).

Response  The Agency acknowledges the importance of formetanate
hydrochloride as a tool for thrips control on citrus.   The Agency’s
Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Formetanate
Hydrochloride allows for continued use of formetanate hydrochloride on
citrus.

Comment  “Under the risk mitigation measures the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) made the proposal to prohibit aerial
applications on orchard crops. Aerial applications are not commonplace
in the stone fruit industry but there are circumstances when aerial
applications are needed. On occasion the need arises for aerial
applications when excessive rains leave orchards too wet to use a ground
rig.  The League supports the prohibition of aerial applications if a
contingency is made to permit aerial applications when ground rigs
cannot be used due to a wet orchard floor.”  (California Grape & Tree
Fruit League. 2006)

Response  The Agency acknowledges the importance of aerial applications
of formetanate hydrochloride on stone fruit when ground application
equipment cannot be used due to a wet orchard floor.  In these
situations, growers would still have the option to apply an alternative
insecticide (such as spinosad or pyriproxyfen) by air to control stone
fruit pests.

Comment  “EPA’s proposed stipulation to require the use of closed
cab rigs with an air blast sprayer is not practical in most instances.
First, there are environmental restrictions with the use of closed cab
tractors because of the equipment size.  Many nectarine growers
establish higher density plantings which mean the trees are planted
closer together making it difficult, if not impossible, to maneuver a
closed cab rig in the orchard without damaging tree limbs. Higher
density plantings are important to the operation because the practice
results in higher production per acre and more efficient water use. In
addition, most nectarine growers don’t own or lease closed cab rigs
making it an economic burden to be required to purchase such equipment
to use carzol.”

“The League opposes the closed cabs requirement because the majority
of stone

fruit growers do not own or lease closed cab equipment and the height of
such

equipment can damage the orchard (California Grape & Tree Fruit League,
2006).   Less than 5% of the area orchardists own closed cab systems.
In addition, the cost of purchasing closed cab tractors given the
limited use of formetanate hydrochloride is difficult to economically
justify.” (Northwest Horticultural Council, 2006)

Response  The Agency acknowledges that many growers do not own or lease
closed cab airblast equipment and that buying or leasing closed cab
equipment will result in some growers incurring additional costs.  The
Agency also acknowledges that some closed cab equipment is larger than
open cab airblast sprayers and may necessitate additional pruning costs
in order to accommodate enclosed cabs.  Growers who cannot afford to
make the transition would still have the option to apply an alternative
insecticide (such as spinosad for thrips control) in open cabs to
control tree fruit pests.  Since BEAD has not conducted an impacts
assessment on the impacts of eliminating the use of open cab ground
equipment from formetanate hydrochloride labeling, BEAD can only address
this comment qualitatively.

References

California Citrus Mutual.  2006.  Comment from Robert D. Blakely,
Director of Grower Services, California Citrus Mutual, 512 North Kaweah
Avenue, Exeter, CA 93221.

California Grape & Tree Fruit League. 2006.  Comment from Marcy Martin
Gabrielle, Director, Trade Services Director, Environmental and
Regulatory Affairs, California Grape & Tree Fruit League, Kirkland, CA.

Northwest Horticultural Council. 2006.  Comment from Dr. Michael J.
Willett, Vice President for Scientific Affairs, Northwest Horticultural
Council, 105 So. 18th Street, Suite 105, Yakima, Washington 98901 (509)
453-3193   www.nwhort.org


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7873-7876]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02985]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77092; File No. SR-BOX-2016-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Add
Rule 7310 (Drill-Through Protection) To Implement a New Price
Protection Feature

February 9, 2016.
    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 27, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 add Rule 7310 (Drill-through Protection)
to implement a new price protection feature. The text of the proposed
rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at
the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt a mechanism that will prevent
BOX from experiencing dramatic price swings. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to add Rule 7310 (Drill-through Protection) to implement a new
price protection feature on BOX. The new price protection feature is
designed to prevent orders and quotes from drilling through and
executing at multiple price points. This circumstance can exist if, for
example, a Market Order,\3\ or aggressively priced Limit Order \4\ or
quote is entered that is larger than the total volume of contracts
quoted at the top-of-book across all U.S. options exchanges.\5\
Currently, without any protections in place, this could result in
options executing at prices that have little or no relation to the
theoretical price of the option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Market Orders submitted to BOX are executed at the best
price obtainable for the total quantity available when the order
reaches the BOX market. Any remaining quantity is executed at the
next best price available for the total quantity available. This
process continues until the Market Order is fully executed. Prior to
execution at each price level, Market Orders are filtered pursuant
to the procedures set forth in Rule 7130(b) to avoid trading through
the NBBO. See Rule 7110(c)(3).
    \4\ Limit Orders entered into the BOX Book are executed at the
price stated or better. Any residual volume left after part of a
Limit Order has traded is retained in the BOX Book until it is
withdrawn or traded (unless a designation described in Rule7110(d)
is added which prevents the untraded part of a limit order from
being retained). All Limit Orders (with the exception of those with
a Good 'Til Cancelled (``GTC'') designation as described in Rule
7110(d)(1)) are automatically withdrawn by the Trading Host at
market close.
    \5\ There are currently 12 options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, in a thinly traded option:

                                                 Away Exchanges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Exchange                         Bid size        Bid price      Offer price     Offer size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Away Exchange #1................................               5           $2.00           $2.05               5
Away Exchange #2................................               5            2.00            2.10               5
Away Exchange #3................................               5            2.00            2.10               5
Away Exchange #4................................               5            2.00            2.15               5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                BOX Price Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Exchange                         Bid size        Bid price      Offer price     Offer size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOX order.......................................               5           $2.00           $2.05               5
BOX order.......................................  ..............  ..............            2.10               5
BOX order.......................................  ..............  ..............            3.20               5
BOX order.......................................  ..............  ..............            6.00               5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange receives a routable Market Order to buy 50
contracts, the system will respond as described below:
    5 Contracts will be executed at $2.05 against BOX.
    5 contracts will be executed at $2.05 against Away Exchange #1.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Prior to routing an order to an Away Exchange, the order is
first exposed on the BOX Book at the NBBO. See Rule 7130(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5 contracts will be executed at $2.10 against BOX.
    5 contracts will be executed at $2.10 against Away Exchange #2.
    5 contracts will be executed at $2.10 against Away Exchange #3.
    5 contracts will be executed at $2.15 against Away Exchange #4.
    After these executions, there are no other known valid away
exchange quotes. The National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'') is therefore
comprised of the remaining interest on the BOX Book,\7\ specifically
five (5) contracts at $3.20 and five (5) contracts at $6.00. In the
absence of a price protection mechanism, the order would execute
against the remaining interest at $3.20 and $6.00, resulting in a
potential unexpected fill price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``BOX Book'' means the electronic book of orders on
each single option series maintained by the BOX Trading Host. See
Rule 100(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To bolster the normal resilience and market behavior that
persistently produces robust reference prices, BOX is proposing to
create a level of protection that prevents the market from moving
beyond set thresholds. The thresholds consist of a High Limit and Low
Limit \8\ which give an acceptable range for the order or quote to
execute. When an order or quote is initially received by the Trading
Host,\9\ the Exchange will calculate the High Limit and Low Limit.
These Limits present the applicable trading range within which the
order or quote may execute (``Acceptable Trade Range''); an order or
quote to buy (sell) will be allowed to execute up (down) to and
including the maximum (minimum) price within the Acceptable Trade
Range. The High Limit is calculated by adding the Price Collar,\10\ as
defined in further detail below, to the National Best Offer (``NBO'')
and the Low Limit is calculated by subtracting the Price Collar from
the National Best Bid (``NBB'').\11\ If the NBBO on the opposite side
of the order or quote is not available, the NBBO on the same side will
be used for calculating the Limits.\12\ For Complex Orders, the cNBBO
\13\ will be used when calculating the Limits. The High Limit and Low
Limit are established upon initial entry of the order or quote;
therefore, the Acceptable Trade Range remains the same for the complete
processing of the order or quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Proposed Rule 7310(b).
    \9\ The term ``Trading Host'' means the automated trading system
used by BOX for the trading of options contracts. See Rule
100(a)(66).
    \10\ See Proposed Rule 7310(b)(1).
    \11\ See propose Rule 7310(b).
    \12\ See proposed Rule 7310(b)(4).
    \13\ The term ``cNBBO'' means the best net bid and offer price
for a Complex Order Strategy based on the NBBO for the individual
options components of such Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Price Collar is calculated by first determining the acceptable
number of ticks \14\ that an order or quote can trade away from the
NBBO at the time the order or quote was received. The acceptable number
of ticks is then multiplied by the minimum trading increment \15\
applicable to that option series. Under the proposed price protection,
Participants will be allowed to submit values for the acceptable number
of ticks that their orders or quotes can trade away from the NBBO at
the time the order or quote was received.\16\ The Exchange will also
supply default values on an underlying security basis. Unless
determined otherwise by the Exchange and announced to Participants via
Information Circular, the Exchange default value shall be three (3)
ticks. The Exchange determined the default values based on Participant
feedback and its own analysis. When calculating the Price Collar, and
therefore the High Limit and Low Limit, the Exchange will use the most
restrictive value for the acceptable number of ticks between the
Participant-provided and the Exchange default.\17\ This is designed to
give Participants flexibility in the level of protection that they want
while allowing the Exchange to provide a minimum level of protection
for orders and quotes on BOX. Participants will be able to set the
value for the acceptable number of ticks on an underlying security
basis and may update the values on a daily basis with such changes
taking effect on the following trading day. Any changes to the Exchange
default values would take effect no earlier than the following trading
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The term ``tick'' refers to one minimum trading increment
for that options series.
    \15\ See Rule 7050.
    \16\ For non-complex orders, Participants will be permitted to
provide values for this price protection mechanism based on the
underlying security. For example, a Participant can provide
different values for all series of Google and Apple options. For
Complex Orders, Participants will be able to provide a value that
will be applicable to all Complex Orders submitted by that
Participant.
    \17\ The Participant must enter a value greater than zero (0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed price protection mechanism will prevent eligible
orders and quotes that are marketable from trading outside of the
Acceptable Trade Range.\18\ Specifically, the Exchange will not
automatically execute, expose, or route eligible orders or quotes that
are marketable if the price that the execution, exposure or route would
occur at is outside of the Acceptable Trade Range. If, after an initial
execution within the Acceptable Trade Range, an order or quote reaches
outside the Acceptable Trade Range, then the remaining quantity of the
incoming order or quote will be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ If an inbound order or quote trades against a Legging or an
Implied Order, the proposed price protection mechanism will only
apply to the incoming order or quote and not to any other order or
quote of the other leg components or of the Complex Order Book
involved in completing the trade. See proposed IM-7300-2 to Rule
7300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the following examples, assume that a Participant provides that
the acceptable number of ticks an order or quote can trade is two (2)
and the Exchange default is three (3) ticks. The price protection will
use the acceptable number of ticks provided by the Participant because
it is more restrictive than the Exchange default. Assume also that the
series is quoted in $0.01 increments so the Price Collar would be $0.02
(2*$0.01). If the series has a NBO of $1.25 and NBB of $1.20, then the
High Limit would be $1.27 and the Low Limit would be $1.18 giving an
Acceptable Trade Range of $1.27-$1.18.

Example #1
    Assume the following interest is available in the applicable
series:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Exchange                    Offer price        Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOX order...............................           $1.25              10
BOX order...............................            1.26              30
Away Exchange...........................            1.35              60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange receives a Market Order to buy 100 contracts, the
Exchange will respond as described below:
     10 Contracts will be executed at $1.25 against the order
on BOX.
     30 contracts will be executed at $1.26 against the order
on BOX.
     The remaining 60 contracts will be canceled because there
is no available interest within the Acceptable Trade Range. The order
on the Away Exchange to sell 60 contracts at $1.35 is above the High
Limit of $1.27 and therefore the order cannot trade at that level and
the Exchange will not route the order to the Away Exchange.
Example #2
    Assume the following interest is available in the applicable
series:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Exchange                    Offer price        Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOX order...............................           $1.25              50
BOX order...............................            1.26             100
Away Exchange...........................            1.27              50
BOX order...............................            1.32              50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange receives a Market Order to buy 200 contracts, the
Exchange will respond as described below:
     50 contracts will execute at $1.25 against the order on
BOX.
     100 contracts will execute at $1.26 against the order on
BOX.
     50 contracts will be routed to the Away Exchange to
execute at $1.27.
Example #3
    For this example, assume the same book interest exists as in
example #2 above. However, assume that when the order is routed to the
Away Exchange only 25 out of the 50 contracts are available to execute.
The remaining 25 contracts would be returned to BOX. These 25 contracts
would still have the same Acceptable Trade Range as when the order was
first received by BOX ($1.27-$1.18); the Acceptable Trade Range does
not get recalculated when an order returns from being routed.
Therefore, the Exchange would cancel the remaining 25 orders because
the only remaining interest is the order on BOX to sell at $1.32, which
is outside the Acceptable Trade Range.
    The proposed price protection feature will be available to all
Participants and will be mandatory. If a Participant does not provide
values for this feature, the Exchange's default values will be applied.
Additionally, this proposed price protection feature will be available
each trading day after the opening until the close of trading.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The proposed price protection feature will not cover the
opening of the market. The opening of the market is covered by Rule
7070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed price protections are intended
to protect market participants from executions at prices that are
significantly through the market. BOX believes that Participants who
submit orders and quotes on the Exchange generally intend to receive
executions at or near where the market was when the order or quote was
received. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the propose price
protections will help prevent orders and quotes from trading at an
excessive number of price points. BOX also believes that orders and
quotes which trade at an excessive number of price points have the
potential to create market volatility. As such, the Exchange believes
these enhancements to the price protections available on BOX may also
help limit unnecessary volatility.
    The Exchange will provide Participants with notice, via Information
Circular, about the implementation date of these proposed enhancements
to the price protections.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\20\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest. In particular, the propose [sic] rule change is
consistent with these requirements in that it will reduce the negative
impacts of sudden, unanticipated volatility in individual options, and
serve to preserve an orderly market in a transparent and uniform
manner, increase overall market confidence, and promote fair and
orderly markets and the protection of investors. Specifically, BOX
believes that the NBBO is a fair representation of then-available
prices and accordingly the proposal helps to avoid executions at prices
that are significantly worse than the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BOX believes the proposed price protection functionality will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market by providing Participants with greater flexibility and control
over how orders and quotes interact. Instead of imposing a rigid one-
size-fits-all price protection mechanism, the proposed functionality
allows for customization and choice on the part of the Participant
entering orders and quotes. As proposed, the Participant can select how
many price points beyond the NBBO at the time the Exchange receives the
order or quote

that the Participant would like the order to trade.
    BOX believes that providing default values and using the most
restrictive value between the Participant-provided and default values
is consistent with the stated goals of this feature and is necessary to
achieve the proposed expansion of price protection on the Exchange.
Providing default values will benefit the options market as a whole as
this will ensure that all eligible orders and quotes have a minimal
level of price protection.

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 believes the
proposal will provide market participants with additional price
protection. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change
imposes any burden on intramarket competition as the feature is
available to all orders and quotes of all Participants. Nor will the
proposal impose a burden on competition among the options exchanges
because of the vigorous competition for order flow among the options
exchanges. BOX competes with many other options exchanges. In this
highly competitive market, market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues. Additionally, the proposed price
protections are similar to those available on competing exchanges.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See PHLX Rule 1080(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \23\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\24\
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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \24\ 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 under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \25\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\26\ the Commission
may 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 the Exchange
may implement the proposed price protections as soon as possible, which
will benefit all market participants. In support of its request, the
Exchange states the proposed rule change will help to prevent dramatic
price swings. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \27\ For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2016-03 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-BOX-2016-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-03 and should be
submitted on or before March 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02985 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29940]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0794; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-5]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Jupiter, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the title of a final rule
published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2015, amending Class D
Airspace at William P. Gwinn Airport, Jupiter, FL. It should read Class
D Airspace, not Class E Airspace, and the word Proposed is removed.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015, The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 1, 2015, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal
Register amending Class D airspace at William P. Gwinn Airport,
Jupiter, FL. (80 FR24793). After publication, the FAA found that the
title was incorrectly typed as Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace,
Jupiter, FL, instead of Amendment of Class D Airspace, Jupiter, FL.
This action makes the correction.
    The Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005
of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 9, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Docket No.
FAA-2015-0794, amending Class D airspace at William P. Gwinn Airport,
Jupiter, FL, as published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2015, (80
FR 24793), FR Doc. 2015-09881, is corrected as follows: On page 24793,
column 3, line 39, remove, ``Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace;
Jupiter, FL'', and add in its place, ``Amendment of Class D Airspace,
Jupiter, FL.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 13, 2015.
Joey Medders,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-12356 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 60919-60922]
[DOCID:fr26oc07-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56682; File No. SR-FINRA-2007-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to NASD Rule 3210 in Light
of Amendments to the SEC Regulation SHO Delivery Requirements

October 22, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 12, 2007, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) 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 substantially by FINRA.
FINRA has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend NASD Rule 3210 (Short Sale Delivery
Requirements) in light of the amendments to Rule 203 of Regulation SHO
under the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56212 (August 7,
2007), 72 FR 45543 (August 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

3210. Short Sale Delivery Requirements

    (a) If a participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail to
deliver position at a registered clearing agency in a non-reporting
threshold security for 13 consecutive settlement days, the participant
shall immediately thereafter close out the fail to deliver position by
purchasing securities of like kind and quantity.
    (1) Provided, however, a participant of a registered clearing
agency that has a fail to deliver position at a registered clearing
agency in a non-reporting threshold security on October 15, 2007, and
which, prior to October 15, 2007, had been previously grandfathered
from the close-out requirement in paragraph (a) (i.e., because the
participant of a registered clearing agency had the fail to deliver
position at a registered clearing agency on the settlement day
preceding the day that the security became a non-reporting threshold
security), shall close out that fail to deliver position within thirty-
five settlement days of October 15, 2007 by purchasing securities of
like kind and quantity. The requirements in paragraph (b) shall apply
to all such fails to deliver that are not closed out in conformance
with this paragraph (a)(1).
    (2) Provided, however, if a participant of a registered clearing
agency has a fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency
for thirty-five consecutive settlement days in a non-reporting
threshold security that was sold pursuant to SEC Rule 144, the
participant shall immediately thereafter close out the fail to deliver
position in the security by purchasing securities of like kind and
quantity. The requirements in paragraph (b) shall apply to all such
fails to deliver that are not closed out in conformance with this
paragraph (a)(2).
    [(b) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to the amount of
the fail to deliver position that the participant of a registered
clearing agency had at a registered clearing agency on the settlement
day immediately preceding the day that the security became a non-
reporting threshold security; provided, however, that if the fail to
deliver position at the clearing agency is subsequently reduced below
the fail to deliver position on the settlement day immediately
preceding the day that the security became a non-reporting threshold
security, then the fail to deliver position excepted by this paragraph
(b) shall be the lesser amount.]
    (b)[(c)] If a participant of a registered clearing agency has a
fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency in a non-
reporting threshold security for 13 consecutive settlement days (or 35
consecutive settlement days if entitled to rely on paragraphs (a)(1) or
(a)(2) of this rule), the participant and any broker or dealer for
which it clears transactions, including any market maker that would
otherwise be entitled to rely on the exception provided in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of SEC Rule 203 of Regulation SHO, may not accept a short
sale order in the non-reporting threshold security from another person,
or effect a short sale in the non-reporting threshold security for its
own account, without borrowing the security or entering into a bona-
fide arrangement to borrow the security, until the participant closes
out the fail to deliver position by purchasing securities of like kind
and quantity.
    (c)[(d)] If a participant of a registered clearing agency
reasonably allocates a portion of a fail to deliver position to another
registered broker or dealer for which it clears trades or for which it
is responsible for settlement, based on such broker or dealer's short
position, then the provisions of this rule relating to such fail to
deliver position shall apply to the portion of such registered broker
or dealer that was allocated the fail to deliver position, and not to
the participant.
    (d)[(e)] A participant of a registered clearing agency shall not be
deemed to have fulfilled the requirements of this rule where the
participant enters into an arrangement with another person to purchase
securities as required by this rule, and the participant knows or has
reason to know that the other person will not deliver securities in
settlement of the purchase.

    (e)[(f)] For the purposes of this rule, the following terms shall
have the meanings below:
    (1) The term ``market maker'' has the same meaning as in section
3(a)(38) of the Exchange Act.
    (2) The term ``non-reporting threshold security'' means any equity
security of an issuer that is not registered pursuant to section 12 of
the Exchange Act and for which the issuer is not required to file
reports pursuant to section 15(d) of the Exchange Act:
    (A) For which there is an aggregate fail to deliver position for
five consecutive settlement days at a registered clearing agency of
10,000 shares or more and for which on each settlement day during the
five consecutive settlement day period, the reported last sale during
normal market hours for the security on that settlement day that would
value the aggregate fail to deliver position at $50,000 or more,
provided that if there is no reported last sale on a particular
settlement day, then the price used to value the position on such
settlement day would be the previously reported last sale; and
    (B) Is included on a list published by NASD.
    A Security shall cease to be a non-reporting threshold security if
the aggregate fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency
does not meet or exceed either of the threshold tests specified in
paragraph (e)[(f)](2)(A) of this rule for five consecutive settlement
days.
    (3) The term ``participant'' means a participant as defined in
section 3(a)(24) of the Exchange Act, that is an NASD member.
    (4) The term ``registered clearing agency'' means a clearing
agency, as defined in section 3(a)(23)(A) of the Exchange Act, that is
registered with the Commission pursuant to section 17A of the Exchange
Act.
    (5) The term ``settlement day'' means any business day on which
deliveries of securities and payments of money may be made through the
facilities of a registered clearing agency.
    (f)[(g)] Pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series, the staff, for good
cause shown after taking into consideration all relevant factors, may
grant an exemption from the provisions of this rule, either
unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, to any
transaction or class of transactions, or to any security or class of
securities, or to any person or class of persons, if such exemption is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
* * * * *

9610. Application

    (a) Where to File
    A member seeking exemptive relief as permitted under Rules 1021,
1050, 1070, 2210, 2315, 2320, 2340, 2520, 2710, 2720, 2790, 2810, 2850,
2851, 2860, Interpretive Material 2860-1, 3010(b)(2), 3020, 3150, 3210,
3230, 5150, 6958, 8211, 8213, 11870, or 11900, or Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board Rule G-37 shall file a written application with the
appropriate department or staff of NASD and provide a copy of the
application to the Office of General Counsel of NASD.
    (b) through (c) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    On August 7, 2007, the SEC adopted certain amendments to Regulation
SHO under the Act.\5\ The SEC amended, among other things, the close-
out requirement contained in Rule 203 of Regulation SHO to eliminate
the ``grandfather'' \6\ provision and extend the close-out requirement
from 13 to 35 consecutive settlement days for fails to deliver
resulting from sales of threshold securities pursuant to Rule 144 of
the Securities Act of 1933.\7\ The amendments to the close-out
requirement in Rule 203 of Regulation SHO became effective on October
15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id.
    \6\ The ``grandfather'' provision excluded from the Regulation
SHO close-out requirement fail to deliver positions that were
established prior to the security becoming a threshold security or
prior to the Regulation SHO effective date. Specifically, the
grandfather provision applied to two situations: (1) Fail to deliver
positions occurring before the January 3, 2005 Regulation SHO
effective date; and (2) fail to deliver positions that were
established on or after January 3, 2005, but prior to the security
appearing on the Regulation SHO threshold securities list. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54154 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR
41710 (July 21, 2006). See also SEC Division of Market Regulation:
Key Points About Regulation SHO, dated April 11, 2005.
    \7\ The SEC also adopted amendments to update the market decline
limitation in Rule 200(e)(3) of Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to make conforming
changes to NASD Rule 3210 to reflect the amendments to Rule 203 of
Regulation SHO by eliminating the grandfather provision from Rule 3210
and extending the close-out requirement for fails to deliver resulting
from sales of non-reporting threshold securities pursuant to SEC Rule
144.
Proposed Amendments to NASD Rule 3210
    NASD Rule 3210 (Short Sale Delivery Requirements) applies delivery
requirements to non-reporting threshold securities that are
substantially similar to the Regulation SHO delivery requirements,
which apply only to reporting securities.\8\ In the original rule
change (SR-NASD-2004-044) proposing Rule 3210, FINRA indicated that it
intended to apply and interpret the requirements of Rule 3210
consistent with the SEC's application and interpretation of Regulation
SHO, and to the extent there were subsequent amendments to Regulation
SHO, FINRA would consider amending its requirements accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``reporting security'' means any equity security of
an issuer that is registered under Section 12 of the Act or that is
required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the SEC's recent amendments to the Regulation SHO close-out
requirement, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 3210 to make conforming
amendments to its mandatory close-out requirement to eliminate the
grandfathering provision and extend the close-out requirement for SEC
Rule 144 restricted securities. Specifically, consistent with the SEC's
amendments to Rule 203(b)(3)(i) of Regulation SHO, FINRA is proposing
(1) to require that any previously grandfathered fail to deliver
position in a non-reporting security that is on the Rule 3210 threshold
list on the October 15, 2007 operative date of the proposed rule change
be closed out within 35 settlement days of such date; (2) that if the
fail to deliver position has persisted for 35 consecutive settlement
days from the October 15, 2007 operative date of the proposed rule
change, the proposal would prohibit a participant and any broker-dealer
for which it clears transactions, including market makers, from
accepting any short sale orders or effecting further short sales in the
particular non-reporting threshold security without borrowing, or
entering

into a bona-fide arrangement to borrow, the security until the
participant closes out the entire fail to deliver position by
purchasing securities of like kind and quantity; and (3) that if a
security becomes a non-reporting threshold security after the October
15, 2007 operative date of the proposed rule change, any fails to
deliver in that security that occurred prior to the security becoming a
non-reporting threshold security would become subject to Rule 3210's
mandatory 13 settlement day close-out requirement, similar to any other
fail to deliver position in a non-reporting threshold security.
    Likewise, in light of the SEC's recent amendments to provide
additional time to close-out fails to deliver resulting from sales of
threshold securities pursuant to SEC Rule 144, FINRA is proposing to
amend Rule 3210 to make conforming amendments to its close-out
requirement. Specifically, consistent with the SEC's amendments to Rule
203 of Regulation SHO, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 3210 to extend
the close-out requirement from 13 to 35 consecutive settlement days for
fails to deliver resulting from sales of non-reporting threshold
securities pursuant to SEC Rule 144. Also consistent with the SEC's
amendments to the Regulation SHO close-out requirement, FINRA is
proposing to apply the pre-borrow requirement in amended Rule 3210(b)
to these fails to deliver. Therefore, if the fail to deliver position
persists for 35 consecutive settlement days, a participant of a
registered clearing agency and any broker-dealer for which it clears
transactions, including market makers, would be prohibited from
effecting further short sales in the particular non-reporting threshold
security without borrowing, or entering into a bona-fide arrangement to
borrow, the security until the participant closes out the entire fail
to deliver position by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity.
    FINRA believes that making conforming changes to Rule 3210 to
maintain consistency with the Regulation SHO delivery requirements is
appropriate. Further, as noted in the proposing and adopting releases
relating to the amendments to Rule 203 of Regulation SHO, the SEC
indicated that, if the proposed amendments to Regulation SHO were
adopted, the SEC anticipated that Rule 3210 would be similarly
amended.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54891 (December 7,
2006), 71 FR 75068 (December 13, 2006). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 56212 (August 7, 2007), 72 FR 45543 (August 14,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, as part of the rule change (SR-NASD-2004-044) proposing
Rule 3210, the SEC approved paragraph (g) of Rule 3210, which permits
FINRA to grant exemptive relief from the Rule 3210 short sale delivery
requirements pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series. As part of another rule
change, FINRA inadvertently deleted the reference to Rule 3210 in the
list of rules in Rule 9610(a) for which exemptive relief may be
available.\10\ Accordingly, as part of this rule filing, FINRA proposes
to amend Rule 9610(a) to re-insert the reference to Rule 3210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See File SR-NASD-2005-087.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    As noted above, FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for
immediate effectiveness. FINRA proposes to make the proposed rule
change operative on October 15, 2007, to coincide with the operative
date of the amendments to Rule 203 of Regulation SHO.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules 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. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is
necessary and appropriate to conform to the amendments to Rule 203 of
Regulation SHO and to maintain consistent delivery requirements across
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-FINRA-2007-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-013. 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 inspection
and copying 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 FINRA.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-013 and
should be submitted on or before November 16, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21166 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 56808]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR20-1-000]

ONEOK Arbuckle II Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on October 15, 2019, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2019), ONEOK Arbuckle II
Pipeline, L.L.C. (``Arbuckle II''), filed a petition for declaratory
order seeking approval of its overall tariff and service structure,
proration policy, expansion rights, and open-season process for the
approximately 530-miles long Arbuckle II pipeline system, which will
transport demethanized mix from the STACK and SCOOP areas of Oklahoma
to the Mont Belvieu, Texas area, with expansion capability in the
future, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on November 14, 2019.

    Dated: October 17, 2019.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23096 Filed 10-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77572-77573]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1105 Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-20]

Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Platinum AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Platinum
AK. The creation of a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)
at the Platinum Airport has made this action necessary to enhance
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2010-1105/Airspace Docket
No. 10-AAL-20 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Dunn, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-1105/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-20.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the
FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace the Platinum Airport, in
Platinum, AK, to accommodate the creation of a new SIAP at the Platinum
Airport. This Class E airspace would provide adequate controlled
airspace upward from 700 feet and 1,200 feet above the surface, for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the Platinum Airport.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9U, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 18, 2010, and
effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to revise Class E airspace at the Platinum Airport,
Platinum, AK, and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and
efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Platinum, AK [Revised]

Platinum Airport, AK
    (Lat. 59[deg]00'56.61'' N., long. 161[deg]49'30.95'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Platinum Airport, and the airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile
radius of the Platinum Airport.

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on November 17, 2010.
Michael A. Tarr,
Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-31185 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P