ERG Task Order No. 0<IP_ADDRESS>

TECHNICAL CHARGE AND INSTRUCTIONS TO PEER REVIEWERS

Peer Review of OSHA’s Preliminary Health Effects Section for Beryllium

You have been selected to participate in an external peer review of the
OSHA preliminary health effects section for beryllium that will be part
of a proposed rule that would amend the existing regulation for
occupational exposure to beryllium.  The health effects section includes
a discussion of the adverse effects that result from beryllium exposure
and the evidence that supports those associations.   The health effects
section is not a quantitative risk assessment, but rather the primary
analysis upon which the Agency must rely when making its determination
that employees exposed to beryllium at the current permissible exposure
limit (PEL) face a significant risk of material impairment to their
health and that the proposed standard will substantially reduce that
risk.  The quantitative risk assessment is based on a subset of the
health endpoints and studies discussed in the health effects section.
The quantitative risk assessment is discussed in another section, which
you are also reviewing under this task, addressing a different set of
charge questions.

In the discussion of the health effects and their association with
beryllium exposure, the interpretations of studies and conclusions drawn
should be reasonable, sound, and consistent with the underlying science.
  The overriding goal of the peer review is to ensure that the
presentation of the studies, interpretations of the study results, and
preliminary conclusions drawn are clear and scientifically credible.
OSHA has provided the following questions to guide and focus your review
divided into two types: 1) general questions that apply to all parts of
the health effects section; and 2) specific questions that apply to
individual sections/topics in the health effects section of the proposed
rule.  Your review should, at a minimum, address each question,
providing a discussion and rationale for any “yes” or “no”
responses, and providing other comprehensive comments to clarify your
comments and/or recommendations.  After the charge questions, you will
find instructions on how to access the reference materials on ERG’s
FTP site.

Charge Questions

General

The draft health effects section reviews and summarizes a number of
studies.  Are the studies described in sufficient detail for the reader
to understand how the studies are relevant?  Are the descriptions of the
studies and results accurate?  Are the strengths and limitations of the
studies appropriately addressed?  Are the interpretations of the studies
reasonable and adequately explained?   If no, what needs to be added to
improve the information and how should it be presented?

The draft health effects section covers a selection of studies for each
health endpoint and does not attempt to cover every study ever published
on each of the endpoints.  Are there additional studies of
importance/significance that should be included in this review that were
missed?  Are there specific health endpoints that should be included in
this review that were missed?

The draft health effects section contains conclusions for each section.
Are these conclusions reasonable with regards to the information
available to OSHA at the time of this review?

Introduction Section on Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds

Is OSHA’s review of beryllium and the particle/chemical
characteristics helpful to the reader in understanding the biological
effects of beryllium?

Are the kinetic studies described in enough detail to understand
absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of beryllium and its
compounds?

Beryllium-Induced Respiratory Disease Section

Is acute beryllium disease described in sufficient detail?  Are there
any significant studies missed in this review?

Has the role of particle size, form of beryllium, dermal contact, and
genetic susceptibility in the development of beryllium sensitization and
chronic beryllium disease (CBD) been adequately characterized?

Is the development and progression of CBD from sensitization accurate,
clear and understandable?  Are there any significant studies or other
information which should be included in this review?

Are the definitions of beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium
disease clear, understandable and reasonable? Does the scientific
evidence indicate that beryllium sensitization be considered an early
endpoint in the development/progression of CBD? Should beryllium
sensitization be considered a condition/risk factor necessary for the
development of CBD?

Is the format and presentation of studies understandable?  Is there a
better format for presentation of this complex information?

Are the preliminary conclusions reasonable and well presented?  Is there
convincing evidence from the occupational studies that beryllium
sensitization and CBD prevalence are exposure-related such that
reductions in exposure will lead to reduction in immune sensitization
and reduction in the occurrence of chronic disease?  Is there convincing
evidence from animal studies that lung burden is an important dose
metric for the development of the Be-immune specific granulomatous
lesions?

Beryllium-Induced Lung Cancer Section

Is the mechanism of inflammatory-induced carcinogenicity a reasonable
mechanism for beryllium and beryllium compounds as laid out in OSHA’s
review of the scientific literature?  Are there other mechanisms or
modes of action equally as plausible?

Other Health Effects

Are there other health effects that should be considered in this review?
 If so, what are the studies?

Accessing References

You may access all reference materials on ERG’s FTP site (see attached
instructions), which are filed in the Health Effects folder.  Note: OSHA
has become aware of two very recent publications in the Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine that may have bearing on the
occupational risk of beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium
disease.  One evaluated the effectiveness of an enhanced preventative
program on the prevalence and incidence rate of sensitization at a
beryllium processing plant (Bailey et al., JOEM, 52(5): 505-512, May
2010).  The authors concluded that the preventative program reduced but
did not eliminate beryllium sensitization.  The other publication
presented results from a study of beryllium sensitized workers evaluated
for CBD (Arjomandi et al., JOEM, 52(6): 647-652, June 2010).  The
workers were employed at a nuclear weapons research and development
facility.  This study showed that the worker cohort characterized by
potentially low beryllium exposures and long latency had a low
prevalence of CBD.

Unfortunately, the publications became available while the OSHA Health
Effects and Risk Assessment documents were undergoing the final stages
of internal review and OSHA was unable to incorporate these publications
into their analysis.  However, electronic copies of the articles are
being provided with the other key references for your review and
comment.

Briefing Conference Call

We will be scheduling a briefing conference call to take place in the
next few weeks during which you will have the opportunity to ask
questions of clarification on the charge and review documents.  OSHA
staff will participate to give a brief overview and background for this
peer review and to answer any questions you may have.

Questions?

Feel free to contact Kate Schalk at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Katherine Moore at
781-674-7348 with any questions or concerns.

WRITTEN COMMENTS ARE DUE TO ERG

NO LATER THAN MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010

REVIEW GUIDELINES

Upon receipt of the review materials, you should have no communications
with members of the public, colleagues or co-workers, OSHA, or other
federal agencies on the materials study under review. If you are
contacted in person or in writing on the peer review by anyone other
than ERG, you should immediately inform Kate Schalk, via email at
HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>, or via
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

If you have any questions on the review materials or need any further
clarification, please contact ERG only and ERG will work with OSHA to
get a reply back to you and the other reviewers.

Your comments will be submitted to OSHA as received (i.e. unedited) and
may be made available to the public. ERG may, however, format your
comments as needed for consistency in the final peer review summary
report.

FORMATTING INSTRUCTIONS

Please prepare your comments addressing the issues and questions as
stated in the Technical Charge, and organize your comments by charge
question. To assist you in preparing your comments, ERG has provided you
with an electronic copy of the Technical Charge via email.

Additional format recommendations are as follows:

TYPE SIZE:	11 point		PAPER SIZE:	8.5" x 11"

SPACING:	1.5 line spacing		MARGINS:	1" margins

Please use a header with your name in the upper right-hand corner of
each page of your comments.

Organize your comments following the order of the charge questions.
Preferably, cut and paste the charge questions into your written
document and write your responses to each question.  If for some reason
you choose not to answer a question, please provide a reason why (e.g.,
question is outside my area of expertise, etc.).   Any comments you wish
to provide not associated with a charge question should be included at
the end of your responses.

Please provide a justification for your response when answering the
Charge Questions. Be as detailed as possible in your responses using
complete sentences.

Remember to spell out acronyms when first used.

Avoid incomplete sentences, abbreviations, and terms that might confuse
the reader.

If you are suggesting any additional references, please provide a full
citation, or electronic copy of the reference (if available).

If illustrations or tables are included, be sure that they are suitable
for reproduction.

Please send your comments electronically as an MS Word 2003 file or
later. If sending them via e-mail, send them to Kate Schalk at
HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.  If
mailing a CD, please mail them to: Kate Schalk, ERG, 110 Hartwell
Avenue, Lexington, MA  02421-3136.  Thank you.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45015-45018]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0559]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long
Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing three special local
regulations for three separate marine events within the Coast Guard
Sector Long Island Sound (LIS) Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This
temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during these events. Entry into, transit through,
mooring, or anchoring within these regulated areas is prohibited unless
authorized by COTP Sector Long Island Sound.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from 12:01 a.m. on
July 12, 2016 until 11:00 a.m. on August 6, 2016. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was
signed, June 23, 2016, until July 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0559 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Petty Officer Jay TerVeen, Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector Long Island Sound, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LIS Long Island Sound
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NAD 83 North American Datum 1983

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    This rulemaking establishes three special local regulations for two
swim events and one fireworks display. Each event and its corresponding
regulatory history are discussed below.
    The Jones Beach State Park Fireworks is a recurring marine event
with regulatory history. This recurring event is codified in Table 1 to
33 CFR 165.151 (7.19). The Coast Guard is using a Special Local
Regulation for this event due to a determination that a safety zone
will be insufficient to mitigate the event's extra and unusual hazards
this year.
    The Mystic Sharkfest Swim is a recurring marine event with
regulatory history. A special local regulation was established in 2015
for the Mystic Sharkfest Swim event when the Coast Guard issued a
temporary rule entitled, ``Special Local Regulation; Mystic Sharkfest
Swim; Mystic River; Mystic, CT.''
    Island Beach Two Mile Swim is a recurring marine event with
regulatory history. A special local regulation was established for this
event on July 29, 2015 via a temporary final rule entitled, ``Special
Local Regulations; Marine Events held in the Sector Long Island Sound
Captain of the Port Zone.'' This rule was published on August 13, 2015
in the Federal Register (80 FR 48436).
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule
because doing so would be impracticable. There is insufficient time to
publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before
these events take place. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run
would inhibit the Coast Guard's mission to keep the ports and waterways
safe.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the
preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1233.
    The COTP Sector LIS has determined that the special local
regulations established by this temporary final rule are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these
events.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes three special local regulations for two swim
events and one fireworks show. The locations of these regulated areas
are as follows:

                        Special Local Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Jones Beach Fireworks Display.......  Location: There will be three
                                          areas created for the special
                                          local regulation. The first
                                          area, ``No Entry Area'', is on
                                          the navigable waterway located
                                          along the south shore of Jones
                                          Beach State Park. The second
                                          area, ``Slow/No Wake Area'',
                                          is located on the navigable
                                          waterway between Meadowbrook
                                          State Parkway and Wantagh
                                          State Parkway. The third area,
                                          ``No Southbound Traffic
                                          Area'', in the navigable
                                          waters of Zach's Bay.
2. Mystic Sharkfest Swim...............  Location: All waters of Mystic
                                          River off Mystic, CT contained
                                          within the following area;
                                          beginning at a point on land
                                          in position at 41[deg]21'41''
                                          N., 071[deg]58'01'' W.; then
                                          south-west across Mystic River
                                          to a point on land in position
                                          at 41[deg]21'36'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'05'' W.; near Pearl
                                          Street then south-east along
                                          the shoreline to a point on
                                          land in position at
                                          41[deg]21'31'' N.;
                                          071[deg]58'02'' W.; near Park
                                          Place; then south-west along
                                          the shoreline to a point on
                                          land in position at
                                          41[deg]21'27'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'07'' W.; near
                                          Gravel Street; then south
                                          along the shoreline to a point
                                          on land in position
                                          41[deg]21'10'' N,
                                          071[deg]58'14'' W.; then east
                                          across Mystic River to a point
                                          on land in position
                                          41[deg]21'09'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'11'' W.; then north
                                          along the shoreline to a point
                                          on land in position
                                          41[deg]21'21'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'02'' W., then east
                                          along the shoreline to a point
                                          on land in position
                                          41[deg]21'25'' N.,
                                          071[deg]57'53'' W. near Holmes
                                          Street, then north along the
                                          shoreline to a point on land
                                          in position 41[deg]21'38'' N.,
                                          071[deg]57'53'' W.; near the
                                          Mystic Seaport Museum and then
                                          northwest along the shoreline
                                          back to point of origin (NAD
                                          83).
3. Island Beach Two Mile Swim..........  Location: All waters of Captain
                                          Harbor between Little
                                          Captain's Island and Bower's
                                          Island that are located within
                                          the box formed by connecting
                                          four points in the following
                                          positions. Beginning at
                                          40[deg]59'23.35'' N.,
                                          073[deg]36'42.05'' W., then
                                          northwest to 40[deg]59'51.04''
                                          N., 073[deg]37'57.32'' W.,
                                          then southwest to
                                          40[deg]59'45.17'' N.,
                                          073[deg]38'01.18'' W., then
                                          southeast to 40[deg]59'17.38''
                                          N., 073[deg]36'45.90'' W.,
                                          then northeast to the
                                          beginning point at
                                          40[deg]59'23.35'' N.,
                                          073[deg]36'42.05'' W.; (NAD
                                          83).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule establishes additional vessel movement rules within areas
specifically under the jurisdiction of the special local regulations
during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a
significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The
enforcement of these regulated areas will be relatively short in
duration, (2) persons or vessels desiring entry into the ``No Entry''
areas or a deviance from the stipulations within the ``Slow/No Wake
Areas'' may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound
or designated representative, may do so with permission from the COTP
Sector LIS or a designated representative; (3) vessels can operate
within the regulated area provided they do so in accordance with the
regulation and (4) before the effective period, public notifications
will be made to local mariners through appropriate means, which may
include the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
these regulated areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L.
104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule.
If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast
Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
temporary rule involves the establishment of three regulated areas. It
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T01-0559 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T01-0559  Special Local Regulations; Marine Events held in
the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) Location. This section will be enforced at the locations listed
for each event in the Table 1 to Sec.  100.T01-0559.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced on the dates and
times listed for each event in Table 1 to Sec.  100.T01-0559.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: A
``designated representative'' is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the
COTP, Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her behalf. The
designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be
on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or
loudhailer. ``Official patrol vessels'' may consist of any Coast Guard,
Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned
or approved by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound. In addition, members
of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators
of this regulation.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
100.35 apply.
    (2) Operators of vessels desiring to deviate from these regulations
should contact the COTP Sector Long Island Sound at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Sector LIS command center) or the designated representative via VHF
channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.
    (3) Any vessel given permission to deviate from these regulations
must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long
Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed
as directed.

        Table 1 to Sec.   100.T01-0559--Special Local Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Jones Beach Fireworks Display.......   Date: July 4, 2016.
                                          Rain Date: July 5,
                                          2016.
                                          Time: 9:00 p.m. to
                                          10:25 p.m.

                                          Location: ``No Entry
                                          Area'': [Barge Location]
                                          ``Slow/No Wake Area'': All
                                          navigable waters between
                                          Meadowbrook State Parkway and
                                          Wantagh State Parkway and
                                          contained within the following
                                          area. Beginning in approximate
                                          position 40[deg]35'49.01'' N.,
                                          73[deg]32'33.63'' W.; then
                                          north along the Meadowbrook
                                          State Parkway to its
                                          intersection with Merrick Road
                                          in approximate position
                                          40[deg]39'14.00'' N.,
                                          73[deg]34'00.76'' W.; then
                                          east along Merrick Road to its
                                          intersection with Wantagh
                                          State Parkway in approximate
                                          position 40[deg]39'51.32'' N.,
                                          73[deg]30'43.36'' W.; then
                                          south along the Wantagh State
                                          Parkway to its intersection
                                          with Ocean Parkway in
                                          approximate position
                                          40[deg]35'47.30'' N.,
                                          73[deg]30'29.17'' W. then west
                                          along Ocean Parkway to its
                                          intersection with Meadowbrook
                                          State Parkway at the point of
                                          origin in approximate position
                                          40[deg]35'49.01'' N.,
                                          73[deg]32'33.63'' W.;`` No
                                          Southbound Traffic Area'': All
                                          navigable waters of Zach's Bay
                                          south of the line connecting a
                                          point near the western
                                          entrance to Zach's Bay in
                                          approximate position
                                          40[deg]36'29.20'' N.,
                                          073[deg]29'22.88'' W.; and a
                                          point near the eastern
                                          entrance of Zach's Bay in
                                          approximate position
                                          40[deg]36'16.53'' N.,
                                          073[deg]28'57.26'' W.
2. Mystic Sharkfest Swim...............   Date: July 9, 2016.
                                          Time: 7:30 a.m. to
                                          10:00 a.m.
                                          Location: ``All waters
                                          of Mystic River off Mystic, CT
                                          contained within the following
                                          area; beginning at a point on
                                          land in position at
                                          41[deg]21'41'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'01'' W.; then south-
                                          west across Mystic River to a
                                          point on land in position at
                                          41[deg]21'36'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'05'' W. near Pearl
                                          Street then south-east along
                                          the shoreline to a point on
                                          land in position at
                                          41[deg]21'31'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'02'' W. near Park
                                          Place; then south-west along
                                          the shoreline to a point on
                                          land in position at
                                          41[deg]21'27'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'07'' W. near Gravel
                                          Street; then south along the
                                          shoreline to a point on land
                                          in position 41[deg]21'10'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'14'' W.; then east
                                          across Mystic River to a point
                                          on land in position
                                          41[deg]21'09'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'11'' W.; then north
                                          along the shoreline to a point
                                          on land in position
                                          41[deg]21'21'' N.,
                                          071[deg]58'02'' W., then east
                                          along the shoreline to a point
                                          on land in position
                                          41[deg]21'25'' N.,
                                          071[deg]57'53'' W. near Holmes
                                          Street, then north along the
                                          shoreline to a point on land
                                          in position 41[deg]21'38'' N.,
                                          071[deg]57'53'' W. near the
                                          Mystic Seaport Museum and then
                                          northwest along the shoreline
                                          back to point of origin'' (NAD
                                          83).
                                          Additional
                                          Stipulations: (1) In
                                          accordance with the general
                                          regulations found in section
                                          100.35 of this part, we are
                                          requiring non-event vessels
                                          transiting through the area
                                          during the enforcement period
                                          to travel at no wake speeds or
                                          6 knots, whichever is slower
                                          and that vessels shall not
                                          block or impede the transit of
                                          event participants, event
                                          safety vessels or official
                                          patrol vessels in the
                                          regulated area unless
                                          authorized by the Captain of
                                          the Port (COTP) or designated
                                          representatives. (2) All
                                          persons transiting through the
                                          area shall maintain a minimum
                                          distance of 100 feet from the
                                          swimmers.
3. Island Beach Two Mile Swim..........   Date: August 3, 2016.
                                          Time: 7:30 a.m. to
                                          11:00 a.m.
                                          Location: The
                                          following area is a safety
                                          zone: All waters of Captain
                                          Harbor between Little
                                          Captain's Island and Bower's
                                          Island that are located within
                                          the box formed by connecting
                                          four points in the following
                                          positions. Beginning at
                                          40[deg]59'23.35'' N.
                                          073[deg]36'42.05'' W., then
                                          northwest to 40[deg]59'51.04''
                                          N. 073[deg]37'57.32'' W., then
                                          southwest to 40[deg]59'45.17''
                                          N. 073[deg]38'01.18'' W., then
                                          southeast to 40[deg]59'17.38''
                                          N. 073[deg]36'45.90'' W., then
                                          northeast to the beginning
                                          point at 40[deg]59'23.35'' N.
                                          073[deg]36'42.05'' W. (NAD
                                          83).
                                          Additional
                                          stipulations: All persons
                                          transiting through the area
                                          shall maintain a minimum
                                          distance of 100 yards from the
                                          swimmers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: June 23, 2016.
K.B. Reed,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Sector Long
Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2016-16518 Filed 7-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75940-75942]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31156]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0275]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 5 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision requirement. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 5, 2011. The exemptions
expire on December 5, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 at any time 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., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On October 17, 2011, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (76 FR 64164). That notice listed 5 applicants' case
histories. The 5 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 5 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement, but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 5
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, corneal opacification, complete loss of
vision and enucleation. In most cases, their eye conditions were not
recently developed. Three of the applicants were either born with their
vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The two
individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
them for periods ranging from 4 to 15 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing

requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a
commercial vehicle, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of
the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 5 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. With
their limited vision, they have driven CMVs for careers ranging from 12
to 36 years. In the past 3 years, none of the drivers was involved in
crashes or convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 17, 2011,
notice (76 FR 64164).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 5 applicants, none of the applicants was involved in crashes or
convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 5 applicants listed in the notice of October
17, 2011 (76 FR 64164).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 5 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 5 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Michael W. Gibbs (NC), Frank E. Johnson, Jr. (FL), Michael J.
Robinson (WV), Fred L. Stotts (OK) and James D. Zimmer (OH) from the
vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements
cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: November 28, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-31156 Filed 12-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28204-28207]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12762]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80921; File No. SR-GEMX-2017-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Fee
Schedule

June 14, 2017.
    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 June 1, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to add a
percentage measurement as an alternative way of qualifying for Tiers 2-
4 of the Total Affiliated Member ADV for purposes of calculating a
member's fees and rebates for purposes of Section I, as described
further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Fee Schedule to add a percentage measurement as an alternative way of
qualifying for Tiers 2-4 of the Total Affiliated Member ADV for
purposes of calculating a member's fees and rebates for purposes of
Section I.
    The Exchange currently uses volume-based tiers, referred to as the
Total Affiliated Member ADV, to assess the level of taker fees and
maker rebates applicable to members. These tiers apply to both Penny
Symbols and SPY, and to Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index options).
These tiers apply to all different categories of market participants
set forth in Section I, such as Market Makers, Firm Proprietary/Broker-
Dealer, and Priority Customers.\3\ The Total Affiliated Member ADV
category includes all volume in all symbols and order types, including
both maker and taker volume and volume executed in the Price
Improvement Mechanism (``PIM''), Facilitation, Solicitation, and
Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') mechanisms. All eligible volume
from affiliated members will be aggregated in determining applicable
tiers, provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the
members as reflected on each member's Form BD, Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange also uses a separate set of tiers to determine
the amount of a Priority Customer's maker rebate. These volume
requirements of these tiers are a subset of a member's Total
Affiliated Member ADV. The Exchange is not changing the Priority
Customer Maker ADV tiers as part of this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently uses numeric thresholds for the purpose of
determining a member's eligibility for Tiers 1-4. Currently, a member
would qualify for Tier 1 if its ADV is 0-99,999 contracts in a given
month; Tier 2 if its ADV is 100,000-224,999 contracts in a given month;
Tier 3 if its ADV is 225,000-349,999 contracts in a given month, and
Tier 4 if its ADV is 350,000 or more contracts in a given month.
    The Exchange now proposes to add a percentage-based calculation
that may be used as an alternative to the numeric

thresholds for determining a member's eligibility for the Total
Affiliated Member ADV tiers. Specifically, a member would be eligible
for Tier 2 if it executes 100,000-224,999 contracts or 1% to less than
2% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume; Tier 3 if it executes
225,000-349,999 contracts or 2% to less than 3% of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume; and Tier 4 if it executes 350,000 or more
contracts or 3% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. For
purposes of measuring Total Affiliated Member ADV, Customer Total
Consolidated Volume means the total volume cleared at The Options
Clearing Corporation in the Customer range in equity and ETF options in
that month. The Exchange developed these percentage requirements based
on historical data, and believes that there is a close correlation
between the proposed percentage requirements and the current numeric
requirements.
    As is the case currently, the Total Affiliated Member ADV category
will continue to include all volume in all symbols and order types,
including both maker and taker volume and volume executed in the PIM,
Facilitation, Solicitation, and QCC mechanisms. Similarly, all eligible
volume from affiliated members will continue to be aggregated in
determining applicable tiers, provided there is at least 75% common
ownership between the members as reflected on each member's Form BD,
Schedule A.
    The fees and rebates in Section I to which the Total Affiliated
Member ADV tiers apply remain unchanged.
    In using a percentage-based measurement that considers a member's
volume relative to total customer industry volume, rather than a
member's absolute volume, the Exchange is providing members with an
alternative way to achieve a tier even if that member's absolute volume
no longer meets the tier's requirements. In using a relative
measurement, the Exchange is recognizing that both the industry and a
member's volume may change due to a variety of factors, and is
providing an alternative measurement that may allow that member to
continue to meet its existing tier. At the same time, the proposed
requirements, which are closely aligned to the current numeric
requirements, still require a member to add meaningful volume in order
to qualify for a given tier.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \7\
(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\8\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \8\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \9\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .'' \10\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that determining a member's eligibility for a
Total Affiliated Member ADV tier by using percentage requirements as an
alternative to the existing numeric requirements is reasonable. In
using a percentage-based measurement that considers a member's volume
relative to total customer industry volume, rather than a member's
absolute volume, the Exchange is providing members with an alternative
way to achieve a tier even if that member's absolute volume no longer
meets the tier's requirements. The Exchange also believes that the
actual proposed percentage requirements are reasonable. Using
historical data, the Exchange has formulated percentage requirements
that it believes are closely correlated to the existing numeric
requirements. In using a relative measurement, the Exchange is
recognizing that both the industry and a member's volume may change due
to a variety of factors, and is providing an alternative measurement
that may allow that member to continue to meet its existing tier. At
the same time, the proposed requirements, which are closely aligned to
the current numeric requirements, still require a member to add
meaningful volume in order to qualify for a given tier.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to calculate the
percentage based on the total volume cleared at the OCC in the Customer
range in that month. The Exchange notes that other exchanges have
similar programs that use percentage requirements based on national
customer volume. For example, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') operates a
Customer Rebate Program, which has five volume tiers that consist of
percentage thresholds of national customer volume in multiply-listed
equity and ETF options classes (excluding monthly SPY options).\11\
Similarly, the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') operates a tiered rebate
program, which consists of eight tiers, using both numeric and
percentage thresholds, that is based on the total industry customer
equity and ETF option average daily volume contracts per day in a
month.\12\ As with these programs, the Exchange believes that the use
of customer volume in equity and ETF options here as the baseline
provides a meaningful metric by which to measure a member's activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Phlx Pricing Schedule, Preface B.
    \12\ See NOM Chapter XV, Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to add the percentage
requirements to Tiers 2-4. Since a

member may qualify for the Tier 1 with an ADV of 0, the Exchange does
not believes that a percentage requirement is necessary for this Tier.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to add percentage
requirements to the Total Affiliated Member ADV, and not Priority
Customer Maker ADV, because the proposed change will apply to all
members subject to maker rebates and taker fees in Section I, not just
the subset of market participants and activity that is covered by the
Priority Customer Maker ADV tiers.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposal is an equitable
allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory. As noted above, the
Total Affiliated Member ADV applies to all market participants that are
subject to Maker Rebates and Taker Fees pursuant to Section I, and the
proposed percentage requirements will correspondingly apply. The
percentage requirements, which are closely aligned to the current
numeric requirements, recognize that both a member's and industry
volume may change for a number of reasons, and provides members with an
alternative way to qualify for a given tier that uses a relative,
rather than an absolute, measurement. At the same time, the Exchange
will apply the same percentage requirements to all similarly situated
members. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to add the percentage requirements to Tiers 2-4, since,
as described above, it believes the percentage requirement for Tier 1
is unnecessary. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to add percentage requirement to the Total
Affiliated Member ADV, and not Priority Customer Maker ADV, because the
proposed change will apply to all members subject to maker rebates and
taker fees in Section I, not just the subset of market participants and
activity that is covered by the Priority Customer Maker ADV tiers.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed addition of percentage requirements to Tiers 2-4 of
the Total Affiliated Member ADV tiers does not impose a burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate because the Exchange's
execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive
competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues.
More specifically, the Total Affiliated Member ADV applies to all
market participants that are subject to Maker Rebates and Taker Fees
pursuant to Section I, and the proposed percentage requirements will
correspondingly apply. The percentage requirements recognize that both
a member's and industry volume may change for a number of reasons, and
provides members with an alternative way to qualify for a given tier
that uses a relative, rather than an absolute, measurement. At the same
time, the Exchange will apply the same percentage requirements to all
similarly situated members.
    The Exchange believes that adding the percentage requirements to
Tiers 2-4 does not impose a burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate since, as described above, it believes the percentage
requirement for Tier 1 is unnecessary. The Exchange believes that
adding the percentage requirement to the Total Affiliated Member ADV,
and not Priority Customer Maker ADV, does not impose a burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate because the proposed change
will apply to all members subject to maker rebates and taker fees in
Section I, not just the subset of market participants and activity that
is covered by the Priority Customer Maker ADV tiers.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \14\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-GEMX-2017-23 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-GEMX-2017-23. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; 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-GEMX-2017-23 and should be
submitted on or before July 11, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12762 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 191 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61884-61886]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0900; Product Identifier 2020-NM-080-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, A319-
112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-
151N, and A319-153N airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes; and Model
A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the results of
laboratory tests on non-rechargeable lithium batteries installed in
emergency locator transmitters (ELT), which highlighted a lack of
protection against certain currents that could lead to thermal runaway
and a battery fire. This proposed AD would require modifying a certain
ELT by installing a diode in the airplane circuit connecting the ELT
battery, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49
221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this IBR material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0900.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0900; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views about this proposal. 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, commenters
should submit only one copy of the comments. Send your comments to an
address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-
2020-0900; Product Identifier 2020-NM-080-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received by the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change this NPRM because of those
comments.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0103, dated May 7, 2020;
corrected May 8, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0103'') (also referred to as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, A318-
112, A318-121, A318-122 airplanes; Model A319-111, A319-112, A319-113,
A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, and A319-
153N airplanes; Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-215, A320-216,
A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-
271N, A320-272N, and A320-273N airplanes; and Model A321-111, A321-112,
A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N,
A321-252N, A321-253N, A321-271N, A321-272N, A321-251NX, A321-252NX,
A321-253NX, A321-271NX, and A321-272NX airplanes. Model A320-215
airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the
U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include
those airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by the results of laboratory tests on
nonrechargeable lithium batteries installed in ELTs, which highlighted
a

lack of protection against currents of 28 volts DC or 115 volts AC that
could lead to thermal runaway and a battery fire. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address this unsafe condition, which could result in local
(temporary) fires and could result in damage to the airplane and injury
to occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0103 describes procedures for modifying a certain ELT
by installing a diode in the airplane circuit connecting the ELT
battery.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0103 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0103
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0103 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0103 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0103 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0900 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Clarification of Maintenance Activities With an Affected Part

    EASA AD 2020-0103 defines an affected part as an ELT having part
number (P/N) 01N65900. When the modification (installation of a diode)
is completed, the part number of the ELT does not change. The intent of
paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0103 is to require, for airplanes that
have an affected ELT installed, operators to do the modification within
24 months. For these airplanes, operators can remove an ELT having P/N
01N65900 and reinstall that same part during maintenance activities
within the 24-month compliance for doing the modification. After the
modification is done, operators can install an ELT having P/N 01N65900
as long as the modification is not removed.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 1,100 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................            $450             $705         $775,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included
all known costs in 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2020-0900; Product Identifier 2020-NM-
080-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 16, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Model A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, and A318-122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115,
A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, and A319-153N airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231,
A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-271N,
A320-272N, and A320-273N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212,
A321-213, A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N, A321-252N, A321-253N, A321-
271N, A321-272N, A321-251NX, A321-252NX, A321-253NX, A321-271NX, and
A321-272NX airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the results of laboratory tests on non-
rechargeable lithium batteries installed in emergency locator
transmitters (ELT), which highlighted a lack of protection against
currents of 28 volts DC or 115 volts AC that could lead to thermal
runaway and a battery fire. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
this unsafe condition, which could result in local (temporary)
fires, and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to
occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0103, dated May 7, 2020; corrected May 8, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-
0103'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0103

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0103 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0103 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0103 specifies the parts
installation limitation, for this AD, comply with paragraph (i) of
this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    (1) For airplanes that do not have an ELT having part number (P/
N) 01N65900 installed as of the effective date of this AD: As of the
effective date of this AD, no person may install an ELT having P/N
01N65900 on any airplane unless the airplane has been modified as
required by paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0103.
    (2) For airplanes that have an ELT having P/N 01N65900 installed
as of the effective date of this AD: After modification of the
airplane as required by paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0103, no
person may install an ELT having P/N 01N65900 on that airplane if
the modification is removed.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0103 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0103, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0900.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on September 25, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2020-21628 Filed 9-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P