[Federal Register: February 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 5476-5479]
[DOCID:fr06fe07-67]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55193; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Exchange Fees for Fiscal Year 2007

January 30, 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 December 22, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared
by the CBOE. The CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing
or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the CBOE under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \5\ The Exchange has proposed that the changes to the Fees
Schedule take effect on January 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the CBOE Fees Schedule (``Fees
Schedule'') to make various changes for fiscal year 2007. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the CBOE, on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.cboe.com, and in the Commission's Public

Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the Fees
Schedule to make various fee changes. The proposed changes are the
product of the Exchange's annual budget review. The Exchange proposes
to amend the fees as noted below.
a. Options Transaction Fees
    The Exchange proposes to revise per contract transaction fees in
order to remain competitive and to streamline its Fees Schedule.
    Equity Options: The Exchange proposes to charge all CBOE liquidity
providers (CBOE market-maker, Designated Primary Market-Maker
(``DPM''), Electronic Designated Primary Market-Maker (``e-DPM''), Lead
Market-Maker (``LMM'') and Remote Market-Maker (``RMM''))
(collectively, ``Liquidity Providers'') a $.20 per contract transaction
fee.\6\ Currently, market-makers (including LMMs) are charged $.22 per
contract; DPMs are charged $.16 per contract; e-DPMs are charged $.25
per contract; and RMMs are charged $.26 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The $.20 per contact transaction fee is the standard
Liquidity Provider transaction fee and will be eligible for
reduction pursuant to the ``Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale,''
described in Section II.A.1.b. below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Member firm proprietary transaction fees are currently $.20 per
contract for facilitation of customer orders and $.24 per contract for
non-facilitation orders. The Exchange proposes to charge a flat fee of
$.20 per contract for all member firm proprietary transactions. The
public customer transaction fee would remain at $.00, but public
customer transactions would be subject to the proposed Customer Complex
Order Fee.\7\ Broker-dealer and non-member

market-maker transaction fees would be unchanged (at $.25 per contract
and $.26 per contract, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See infra Section II.A.1.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the Options Intermarket Linkage
(``Linkage'') transaction fee from $.24 per contract to $.26 per
contract. This fee would match the Linkage transaction fee of at least
one other options exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54430 (September 12,
2006), 71 FR 55257 (September 21, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Index Options: The Exchange also proposes to charge index options
\9\ Liquidity Providers a $.20 per contract transaction fee. Currently,
those rates range from $.15 per contract to $.26 per contract. The
member firm proprietary transaction fee (both facilitation and non-
facilitation orders) is proposed to be $.20 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The index options transaction fee schedule includes
transaction fees for options on exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'')
except QQQQ and SPDR options, and options on Holding Company
Depositary Receipts (``HOLDRs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public customer fees for transactions in index, ETF, and HOLDRs
options currently range from $.15 per contract to $.45 per contract.
The Exchange proposes to charge public customers $.18 per contract,
with the following exceptions. The Exchange proposes to charge
customers a flat $.30 per contract for transactions in options on the
S&P 100 Index (``OEX'' and ``XEO'') instead of the current rates of
$.35 and $.20 per contract rates depending on the premium. The Exchange
proposes to charge customers for transactions in options on the S&P 500
Index (``SPX'') $.44 per contract if the premium is greater than or
equal to $1 and $.27 per contract if the premium is less than $1,
instead of the current $.45 and $.25 per contract rates depending on
the premium. The Exchange proposes to charge customers a flat $.40 per
contract for transactions in options on the Jumbo Dow Jones Industrial
Average (``DXL''), Morgan Stanley Retail Index (``MVR'') and CBOE
Volatility Index (``VIX'') instead of the current $.45 and $.25 per
contract rates depending on the premium.
    Broker-dealer transaction fees in index, ETF, and HOLDRs options
currently range from $.25 per contract to $.45 per contract. The
Exchange proposes to charge broker-dealers a flat $.25 per contract,
except for OEX, XEO, and SPX options. OEX and XEO options broker-dealer
fees are proposed to be $.30 per contract, and SPX options broker-
dealer fees are proposed to be $.40 per contract. Non-member market-
maker transaction fees in index, ETF, and HOLDRs options currently
range from $.17 per contract to $.47 per contract. The Exchange
proposes to charge non-member market-makers a flat $.26 per contract,
except for OEX, XEO, and SPX options, which are proposed to be $.30 per
contract for OEX and XEO and $.40 per contract for SPX.
    Linkage transaction fees in index, ETF, and HOLDRs options
currently range from $.20 per contract to $.45 per contract. The
Exchange proposes to charge a flat $.26 per contract fee for Linkage
transactions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    QQQQ and SPDR Options: The Exchange proposes to increase the
customer transaction fee in S&P 500 Depositary Receipts (``SPDR'')
options from $.15 per contract to $.18 per contract. The public
customer transaction fee for QQQQ options would remain at $0.00, but
public customer transactions would be subject to the proposed Customer
Complex Order Fee.\11\ All other proposed changes to the QQQQ and SPDR
options transaction fees mirror the changes described above for equity
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See infra Section II.A.1.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Surcharge Fees: The Exchange currently charges a $.10 per contract
surcharge fee on all contracts traded by the DPM and market-makers in
options on the Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'').\12\ The RUT surcharge fee
is assessed by the Exchange to help it recoup license fees the Exchange
pays to the Frank Russell Company for its license to trade the RUT
product. Similarly, the Exchange charges a $.10 per contract surcharge
fee on all contracts traded by market-makers in options on Dow Jones
indexes, except for DJX options and options on DIAMONDS (``DIA''), to
help it recoup license fees paid to Dow Jones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Fees Schedule, Footnote 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the RUT and Dow Jones surcharge fees
by expanding application of the fees to transactions of all market
participants in these options, except for public customers (i.e., CBOE
and non-member market-maker, member firm and broker-dealer). The
amended Dow Jones surcharge fee would apply only to DJX and DXL
options. These surcharge fees would also apply to Linkage orders.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt a similar $.04 per
contract surcharge fee on all contracts traded by market participants
in OEX, XEO, and SPX options, except for public customers.
    The proposed surcharge fees are similar to the surcharge fee
currently assessed by the Exchange on transactions in MNX and NDX
options \13\ and are similar to surcharge fees charged by other
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Fees Schedule, Footnote 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a program to reduce a Liquidity
Provider's per contract transaction fee based on the number of
contracts the Liquidity Provider trades in a month, based on the
following sliding scale:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Rate
                Tiers                   Contracts per month     (cents)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First...............................  First 50,000...........         20
Second..............................  Next 950,000...........         18
Third...............................  Next 1,500,000.........         15
Fourth..............................  Next 1,500,000.........         10
Fifth...............................  Above 4,000,000........          2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sliding scale would apply to all Liquidity Providers for
transactions in all products. A Liquidity Provider's $.20 per contract
rate will be reduced if the Liquidity Provider reaches the volume
thresholds set forth in the sliding scale in a month. As a Liquidity
Provider's monthly volume increases, its per contract transaction fee
will decrease. Under the sliding scale, the first 50,000 contracts
traded in a month would be assessed at $.20 per contract. The next
950,000 contracts traded (up to 1 million total contracts traded) would
be assessed at $.18 per contract. The next 1.5 million contracts traded
(up to 2.5 million total contracts traded) would be assessed at $.15
per contract, and the next 1.5 million contracts traded (up to 4
million total contracts traded) would be assessed at $.10 per contract.
All

contracts above 4 million contracts traded in a month would be assessed
at $.02 per contract. The Exchange will aggregate the trading activity
of separate Liquidity Provider firms for purposes of the sliding scale
if there is at least 75% common ownership between the firms as
reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A Liquidity Provider's monthly contract volume would be
determined at the firm affiliation level (e.g., if five Liquidity
Provider individuals are affiliated with member firm ABC as
reflected by Exchange records for the entire month, all of the
volume from those five individual Liquidity Providers will count
towards firm ABC's sliding scale transaction fees for that month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to provide Liquidity Providers with two
incentives to prepay annual transaction fees. First, in order to be
eligible to participate in the sliding scale above 1 million contracts
(i.e., at the $.15 per contract rate and lower), a Liquidity Provider
would be required to prepay their transaction fees for the first two
tiers of the sliding scale for the entire year (i.e., $2.172 million).
Second, if a Liquidity Provider prepays annual fees for the first four
tiers of the sliding scale, the Liquidity Provider would receive a
$500,000 prepayment discount (total amount of the prepayment would be
$6.172 million instead of $6.672 million).
    Contract volume resulting from dividend, merger, and short stock
interest strategies as defined in Footnote 13 of the Fees Schedule
would not apply towards reaching the sliding scale volume thresholds,
since that volume may have already received fee reductions as described
in Footnote 13 of the Fees Schedule.
    The Exchange believes the proposed sliding scale is objective in
that the fee reductions are based solely on reaching stated volume
thresholds, similar to the operation of the Exchange's current
Prospective Fee Reduction Program.\15\ The sliding scale is intended to
replace both the Prospective Fee Reduction Program and the Fixed Annual
Fee Program.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See infra Section II.A.1.c.
    \16\ See infra Section II.A.1.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Prospective Fee Reduction Program
    The Exchange proposes to discontinue its Prospective Fee Reduction
Program for fiscal year 2007. This program served to limit market-maker
and DPM fees in periods of high volume.\17\ The Exchange is eliminating
this program due to the implementation of the Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Fees Schedule, Section 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Fixed Annual Fee
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the fixed annual fee program for
DPMs and e-DPMs, which is currently set forth in Section 23 of the Fees
Schedule. This program offered DPMs and e-DPMs the alternative of
choosing a fixed annual fee of $2.25 million instead of being assessed
transaction fees on a per contract basis for its DPM, e-DPM, and RMM
transactions in equity options classes. The Exchange is eliminating
this program due to the implementation of the Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale described above.
e. Customer Complex Order Fee
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a customer transaction fee for
certain complex orders in equity and QQQQ options (``Complex
Orders'').\18\ Specifically, the exchange proposes to adopt a
transaction fee of $.18 per contract for Complex Orders \19\ that
``take liquidity'' from the Exchange's complex order book. The fee
would be charged only for the leg of the Complex Order consisting of
the most contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Currently, no customer transaction fees are assessed in
equity options and QQQQ options.
    \19\ Complex orders are defined in CBOE Rule 6.53C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of the proposed fee, an order ``takes liquidity'' when
it interacts with a complex order residing on the complex order book.
The Exchange will not charge customers for Complex Orders if they are
the liquidity provider (i.e., they are first on the complex order
book).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange will determine the liquidity provider and the
liquidity taker based on time (i.e., the order that arrives first on
the complex order book is the liquidity provider).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fee would apply solely to Complex Orders that take
liquidity from the complex order book. Complex Orders that trade
against orders in the Exchange's regular order book (``EBook'') or
against the displayed individual series quotes would not be assessed
the fee. Also, Complex Orders that rest in the complex order book
before executing would not be assessed the fee.
    Much like broker-dealers, public customers that use sophisticated
trading systems are able to take liquidity quickly from the complex
order book. The Exchange believes the proposed fee is appropriate in
that it would place such customer orders on a more equal footing with
broker-dealer complex orders that are currently subject to transaction
fees. According to the Exchange, the proposed fee is substantially
similar to another exchange's fee that was recently approved by the
Commission.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54751 (November 14,
2006), 71 FR 67667 (SR-ISE-2006-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Member Firm Proprietary and Firm Facilitation Fee Cap
    The Exchange currently caps member firm proprietary and firm
facilitation fees at $100,000 per month per firm.\22\ The Exchange
proposes to increase the cap to $125,000 per month per firm. No other
changes to this program are proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Fees Schedule, Section 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Customer Large Trade Discount Program
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Customer Large Trade Discount
program. The Customer Large Trade Discount program provides a discount
in the form of a cap on the quantity of customer contracts that are
assessed transaction fees for most CBOE index, ETF, and HOLDRs
options.\23\ Currently, customer transaction fees are charged only up
to the first 5,000 contracts per order in Dow Jones options (including
DIA) and SPX options, and only up to the first 3,000 contracts per
order in other index, ETF, and HOLDRs options. The Exchange proposes
to: (i) Increase the SPX options cap to 7,500 contracts; (ii) reduce
the DIA options cap to 3,000 contracts; and (iii) for those index
options currently capped at 3,000 contracts, increase the cap to 5,000
contracts. The cap for other ETF and HOLDRs options would remain
unchanged at 3,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Fees Schedule, Section 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. ORS Order Cancellation Fee
    CBOE currently assesses an executing clearing firm $1 for each
cancelled Order Routing System (``ORS'') order in excess of the number
of orders that the executing clearing member executes in a month (``ORS
Order Cancellation Fee'').\24\ The ORS Order Cancellation Fee is not
charged if less than 500 ORS orders are cancelled in the month. The
purpose of the ORS Cancellation Fee is to ease order backlogs on ORS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Fees Schedule, Section 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some correspondent firms route their orders through multiple CBOE
executing clearing firms. Although the individual correspondent firm
may cancel more orders than are filled, they may not incur the ORS
Cancellation Fee because the executing clearing firm's total mix of
orders from all their correspondents has more fills than cancels.
    The Exchange proposes to address this situation by calculating the
ORS

Cancellation Fee by the cancellation activity of each correspondent
firm (and the executing clearing firm's own cancellation activity when
it self clears), rather than by the aggregate cancellation activity of
the executing clearing firm. Correspondent firms using multiple
executing clearing firms would be evaluated separately, per executing
clearing firm. The Exchange will be able to provide executing clearing
members with information regarding the cancellation activity of each of
its correspondent firms so that the executing clearing member can pass
through any cancellation fees.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to increase the ORS Cancellation
Fee from $1.00 to $1.25 per cancelled ORS order.
    The Exchange proposes that the following ORS cancellation activity
would be exempt from the fee: (i) Cancelled ORS orders that improve the
Exchange's prevailing bid-offer (``BBO'') market when received; and
(ii) fill and cancellation activity occurring within the first one
minute of trading following the opening of each option class. The
Exchange believes the foregoing cancel activity is not an inappropriate
use of systems capacity and therefore should not be subject to the fee.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed ORS Cancellation Fee is
similar to the cancellation fee of another exchange.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53862 (May 24,
2006), 71 FR 31244 (June 1, 200) (SR-ISE-2006-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. DPM Facilities Fee
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the DPM facilities fee, which
the Exchange charges DPMs each month for use of Exchange floor trading
stations. The elimination of this fee is intended to provide fee relief
to DPMs in light of a recently adopted fee that DPMs may incur in
fiscal year 2007.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54804 (November 21,
2006), 71 FR 69150 (November 29, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-98) (Hybrid
Electronic Quoting Fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

j. Miscellaneous, Non-substantive Changes
    The Exchange proposes various non-substantive clean-up changes to
its Fees Schedule. The Section of the Fees Schedule entitled ``Index
Customer Boxes'' under ``Member Transaction Fee Policies and Rebate
Programs'' is proposed to be deleted, as that program is superseded by
the Customer Large Trade Discount Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\27\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)
\28\ of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among CBOE members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \29\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 \30\ thereunder. 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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2006-111 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-CBOE-2006-111. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2006-111 and should be submitted on or before
February 27, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-1860 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 65762]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27616]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84831; SR-CboeBZX-2018-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the
Principal Morley Short Duration Index ETF Under Rule 14.11(c)(4)

December 17, 2018.
    On April 23, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and
trade shares of the Principal Morley Short Duration Index ETF. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on May 8, 2018.\3\ On June 20, 2018, the Commission extended the time
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to August 6, 2018.\4\ On
August 3, 2018, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ On November 1, 2018, the
Commission designated a longer period for Commission action.\7\ The
Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83152 (May 2, 2018),
83 FR 20892.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83479, 83 FR 29838
(June 26, 2018).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83775, 83 FR 39486
(August 9, 2018).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84523, 83 FR 55780
(November 7, 2018).
    \8\ See letter from Kyle Murray, Assistant General Counsel, Cboe
Global Markets (September 13, 2018), available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2018-018/srcboebzx2018018.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 7, 2018, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-CboeBZX-2018-018).

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

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27616 Filed 12-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40629-40630]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0555]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 39
individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    FMCSA received applications from 39 individuals who requested an
exemption from the FMCSRs prohibiting persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a CMV from operating
CMVs in interstate commerce.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8).

III. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for five years if it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such an exemption. FMCSA grants exemptions
from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum
duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal
exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's
medical information provided by the applicant.

IV. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the
criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal
exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Therefore, the 39 applicants in this notice have been
denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8).
    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitutes final
action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent
denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically
publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following 35 applicants do not meet the minimum time
requirement for being seizure-free, either on or off of anti-seizure
medication:

David M. Allyn (CT)
Daniel Bailey (NY)
Tiffany Banks (NV)
Lorenzo Barber (IL)
Richard Benjamin (AL)
Edward Blankenstein II (PA)
Charles Border (NM)
Andrew Browder (AL)
Pietro Capobianco (NJ)
Jon Cole (ID)
Michael Cole (NJ)
Charles Cournoyer (MA)
Ryan Daws (MN)
Shawn Durbin (UT)
William Everett (OH)

Taxhidin Ferati (WI)
Terry Friedrichs (MN)
Adam Fyle (NC)
Keith Hubbard (WV)
Thomas R. James (MN)
Kevin Jandreau (ME)
David Johnston (MN)
Douglas Kelbley (OH)
Timothy T. Leonard (CA)
Steven W. Massman (MN)
Kevin Mathis (NJ)
John McGhee (ND)
Brian Nelson (MO)
Raymond Phillips (FL)
Timothy Picot (MD)
Luis Tirado (PA)
William E. Turner (VA)
Blaine T. Weinsensel (WI)
Jeffrey J. Werner (WI)
Scott Wesner (WI)

    The following four applicants do not meet the minimum time
requirement for a stable anti-seizure medication dosage:

Steven L. Amell, Sr. (VT)
Thomas H. Lee (VA)
Gregory Long (CT)
Christopher Phillips (PA)

     Issued on: August 8, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-17565 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13134-13135]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06061]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-0943]

Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products--Questions and
Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry (GFI) #255 entitled
``Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products--Questions and
Answers.'' This guidance is intended to assist sponsors of animal drug
products in addressing changes in the United States Pharmacopeia (USP)
requirements for the control of elemental impurities in drug products
marketed in the United States.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by May 29, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your

comment does not include any confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information,
your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business
information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you
include your name, contact information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-0943 for ``Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products--
Questions and Answers.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Brent, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-140), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft GFI #255 entitled
``Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products--Questions and
Answers.'' This document provides recommendations to sponsors regarding
the control of elemental impurities in animal drug products, including
all dosage forms and routes of administration.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance,
when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on
``Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products--Questions and
Answers.'' It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in section 512(n)(1) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360b(n)(1)) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0669. The collections of information in 21 CFR 514.1 and 514.8 have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 20, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-06061 Filed 3-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


                           Trifloxystrobin (129112)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                              Date: 16 March 2016

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
 Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
 Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
 Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
 Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
 Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
 Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
 Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
 Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
 Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
 Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
 USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2005 to 2014.
 Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2005 to 2014.
 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2005 to 2013.
What are the limitations to the data?
 Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
 Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
 Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
 Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
 Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, use of existing stocks of a cancelled chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

  Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Trifloxystrobin (129112)
             Sorted Alphabetically  -  Reporting Time:  2005-2014
                                     Crop
                               Average Lbs. A.I.
                               Applied per Year
                             Percent Crop Treated

                                    Average
                                    Maximum
                                       1
Almonds
                                     5,000
                                       5
                                      20
                                       2
Apples
                                    10,000
                                      25
                                      45
                                       3
Apricots
                                    <500
                                      10
                                      25
                                       4
Artichokes @
                                    <500
                                      25
                                      55
                                       5
Cantaloupes
                                    <500
                                       5
                                      15
                                       6
Carrots @
                                    <500
                                    <2.5
                                    <2.5
                                       7
Celery
                                     1,000
                                      20
                                      30
                                       8
Cherries
                                     4,000
                                      25
                                      45
                                       9
Corn
                                    100,000
                                    <2.5
                                       5
                                      10
Cotton (Seed Treatment)
                                     1,000
                                      10
                                      25
                                      11
Cucumbers
                                    <500
                                    <2.5
                                       5
                                      12
Dry Beans/Peas @
                                    <500
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                      13
Grapefruit
                                     3,000
                                      30
                                      45
                                      14
Grapes
                                    20,000
                                      25
                                      40
                                      15
Hazelnuts
                                     3,000
                                      65
                                      75
                                      16
Nectarines
                                    <500
                                       5
                                      15
                                      17
Oranges
                                     3,000
                                       5
                                      15
                                      18
Peaches
                                     1,000
                                    <2.5
                                      10
                                      19
Peanuts
                                    10,000
                                       5
                                      15
                                      20
Peanuts (Seed Treatment)
                                    <500
                                       5
                                      10
                                      21
Pears
                                     1,000
                                      10
                                      30
                                      22
Pecans
                                    10,000
                                      15
                                      20
                                      23
Peppers
                                    <500
                                       5
                                      10
                                      24
Pistachios
                                     1,000
                                      10
                                      15
                                      25
Plums/Prunes
                                    <500
                                    <2.5
                                    <2.5
                                      26
Potatoes
                                    <500
                                     <1
                                    <2.5
                                      27
Pumpkins
                                    <500
                                       5
                                      15
                                      28
Rice
                                    50,000
                                      15
                                      25
                                      29
Soybeans
                                    70,000
                                    <2.5
                                    <2.5
                                      30
Soybeans (Seed Treatment)
                                    10,000
                                       5
                                      10
                                      31
Squash
                                    <500
                                    <2.5
                                       5
                                      32
Strawberries
                                     1,000
                                       5
                                      10
                                      33
Sugar Beets
                                     7,000
                                       5
                                      10
                                      34
Sweet Corn @
                                    <500
                                    <2.5
                                    <2.5
                                      35
Tangelos
                                    <500
                                      15
                                      35
                                      36
Tangerines
                                    <500
                                       5
                                      10
                                      37
Tomatoes
                                    <500
                                    <2.5
                                    <2.5
                                      38
Walnuts
                                    <500
                                    <2.5
                                    <2.5
                                      39
Watermelons
                                     1,000
                                       5
                                      10
                                      40
Wheat
                                    40,000
                                    <2.5
                                       5
                                      41
Wheat (Seed Treatment) @
                                    <500
                                     <1
                                    <2.5

All numbers rounded.
                                                                        <500
Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient
                                                                        <2.5
Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated
                                                                          <1
Less than 1 percent of crop treated
                                                                              @
Newly observed usage which was not reported/observed during the previous SLUA reporting period (2004-2012).

SLUA data sources include:
  USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.


[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24502-24503]
[DOCID:fr05my10-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0660; Notice No. 10-09]
RIN 2120-AJ52

Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft
Structures; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: On January 6, 2010, the FAA published a NPRM proposing to
revise airworthiness standards for type certification requirements of
normal and transport category rotorcraft. The amendment would address
advances in composite structures technology and provide internationally
harmonized standards. The public was invited to comment for a 90-day
period. The comment period closed on April 6, 2010; however, the FAA is
reopening the comment period until July 16, 2010 in response to a
request from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Reopening of
the comment period would allow the rulemaking processes of the FAA and
EASA to better align and facilitate achieving the objective of common
international standards.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published on January 6, 2010 (75
FR 793) closed April 6, 2010, and is reopened until July 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2009-
0660 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minh-Hai Tran-Lam, ARM-207, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov;
    (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this rulemaking.

Background

    On January 6, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register (75
FR 793) Notice No. 09-12, entitled ``Damage Tolerance and Fatigue
Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft Structures'' that proposed to revise
airworthiness standards for type certification requirements of normal
and transport category rotorcraft. The comment period closed April 6,
2010.
    By request dated March 22, 2010, EASA addressed the joint interest
in this rulemaking objective on the international level. EASA will be
issuing an associated Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) with
anticipated close of comment period in the July 2010 timeframe. EASA
stated that in order to provide final rules that are harmonized as much
as possible, it will be essential that technical cooperation is
maintained and that comments arising from the NPRM and NPA processes
are jointly dispositioned by technical experts from each aviation
authority. EASA requested that the comment period be extended to
coincide with their NPA close of comment period, to allow the
rulemaking processes of the FAA and EASA to better align and to
facilitate achieving the objective of common international standards.

Reopening of Comment Period

    In accordance with Sec.  11.47(c) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, the FAA has reviewed the petition made by EASA to reopen
the comment period to Notice No. 10-09. This petitioner has shown a
substantive interest in the proposed rule and good cause for reopening
the comment period. The FAA has determined that reopening the comment
period will allow EASA and others additional time for a more thorough
review of applicable issues and questions raised by the NPRM and
drafting of responsive comments.
    To give all interested persons additional time to complete their
comments, the FAA finds it is in the public interest to reopen the
comment period until July 16, 2010.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-10578 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P