[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6155-6160]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01841]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68711; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule

January 23, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 14, 2013, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``MIAX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') by adopting additional Transaction Fees
and establishing an Options Regulatory Fee applicable to participants
trading options on and using services provided by MIAX.
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative January 2, 2013.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See File No. MIAX-2012-06, filed December 31, 2012
(withdrawn by MIAX on January 14, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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 establish select
transaction and regulatory fees applicable to market participants
trading options on and using services provided by the Exchange. These
fees will apply to all options traded on MIAX. This proposed rule
change replaces previously submitted filing SR-MIAX-2012-06, which was
withdrawn, in its entirety.
a. Transaction Fees
    The proposed Fee Schedule sets forth transaction fees for all
options traded on the Exchange in amounts that vary depending upon
whether the transaction is for the account of a Market Maker or other
market participant, as described more fully below.
i. Market Maker Transaction Fees
    Transaction fees applicable to Market Makers will be based upon the
type of Market Maker and whether the transaction resulted from an order
that was directed to the Market Maker. Market Makers are registered in
one of three categories: Primary Lead Market Maker (``PLMM''),\4\ Lead
Market Maker

(``LMM''),\5\ or Registered Market Maker (``RMM'').\6\ When the term
``Market Maker'' is used herein, it shall refer collectively to all
Market Makers registered in the categories of PLMM, LMM and RMM. As
outlined in Chapter VI of the Exchange's rules, these categories are
important in the differentiation of appointments, obligations and
requirements for each type of Market Maker. As described in Rule 602,
each option class can have only one PLMM appointed, but multiple LMMs
and RMMs can be appointed in each option class up to a limit of 50
Market Makers per option class. PLMMs have a higher continuous quoting
obligation than both LMMs and RMMs, and LMMs have a higher continuous
quoting obligation than RMMs as described in Rule 604(e). Additionally,
Rule 609 sets forth financial requirements--the highest level for
PLMMs, the next highest level to LMMs and the lowest level for RMMs.
Thus, transaction fees charged to PLMMs, LMMs and RMMs reflect the
distinctions between these types of Market Makers. RMMs will be charged
$0.23 per executed contract, LMMs will be charged $0.20 per executed
contract and PLMMs will be charged $0.18 per executed contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Primary Lead Market Maker'' means a Lead Market
Maker appointed by the Exchange to act as the Primary Lead Market
Maker for the purpose of making markets in securities traded on the
Exchange. The Primary Lead Market Maker is vested with the rights
and responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of the Rules with
respect to Primary Lead Market Makers. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \5\ The term ``Lead Market Maker'' means a Member registered
with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in securities
traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and
responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of these Rules with respect
to Lead Market Makers. When a Lead Market Maker is appointed to act
in the capacity of a Primary Lead Market Maker, the additional
rights and responsibilities of a Primary Lead Market Maker specified
in Chapter VI of the Rules will apply. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ The term ``Registered Market Maker'' means a Member
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in
securities traded on the Exchange, who is not a Lead Market Maker
and is vested with the rights and responsibilities specified in
Chapter VI of the Rules with respect to Registered Market Makers.
See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, a discount of $0.02 is applied for Directed Orders. An
Electronic Exchange Member (``EEM'') \7\ may designate a Lead Market
Maker (``Directed Lead Market Maker'' or ``Directed LMM'') on orders it
enters into the System. The LMM must have an appointment in the option
class in order to receive a Directed Order in that option class.\8\ An
LMM may also be the PLMM in an option class and receive a Directed
Order (a ``Directed PLMM''). If an order is directed to a Directed LMM,
the transaction fee will be $0.18 per executed contract for that
Directed LMM and if an order is directed to the Directed PLMM in an
option class, the transaction fee will be $0.16 per executed contract
for the Directed PLMM. This discount is in recognition of the effort on
the part of Directed LMMs and Directed PLMMs to attract directed order
flow to the Exchange. RMMs are not eligible to receive Directed Orders
and therefore will not be offered this discount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' means the holder of
a Trading Permit who is not a Market Maker. Electronic Exchange
Members are deemed ``members'' under the Act. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 514(h) for the requirements related to
Directed Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX's Transaction Fees for Market Makers are comparable to those
of other options exchanges.
    For example, NYSEAmex assesses a $0.18 per contract transaction fee
to directed market makers, whereas MIAX is proposing the same $0.18 per
contract Transaction Fee for Directed LMMs, and a $0.16 per contract
Transaction Fee for Directed PLMMs. Non-directed NYSEAmex options
market makers are assessed a $0.20 per contract transaction fee. MIAX
proposes to assess non-Directed LMMs the same $0.20 per contract
Transaction Fee, and non-Directed PLMMs a Transaction Fee of $0.18.
    MIAX RMMs would be assessed a Transaction Fee of $0.23 per
contract, which is the same amount as the transaction fee in non
``maker-taker'' options for market makers trading in non-Penny Pilot
options on NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ MIAX is not proposing a ``maker-taker'' fee model at this
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Other Market Participant Transaction Fees
Orders for Priority Customer Accounts
    There will be no transaction fees assessed to EEMs entering orders
for the account(s) of Priority Customers.\10\ Similarly, NYSEAmex and
PHLX do not charge transaction fees for non-professional customer
orders in non-``maker-taker'' options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Customer That Is Not a Priority Customer
    An EEM that enters an order that is executed for the account of a
Public Customer \11\ that does not meet the criteria for designation as
a Priority Customer will be assessed a fee of $0.25 per contract. This
fee will also be charged to an EEM that enters an order for the account
of a Public Customer that has elected to be treated as a Voluntary
Professional.\12\ This transaction fee is identical to the transaction
fee assessed for orders for the account(s) of PHLX ``professional
customers'' in the non-maker-taker option classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``Public Customer'' means a person that is not a
broker or dealer in securities. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \12\ The term ``Voluntary Professional'' means any Public
Customer that elects, in writing, to be treated in the same manner
as a broker or dealer in securities for purposes of Rule 514, as
well as the Exchange's schedule of fees. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-MIAX Market Maker
    An EEM that enters an order that is executed for the account of a
non-MIAX market maker will be assessed a fee of $0.45 per contract. A
non-MIAX market maker is a market maker registered as such on another
options exchange. At forty-five cents, MIAX's transaction fee per
executed contract for the account of a non-MIAX market maker is the
same as CBOE (in Penny Pilot issues).
Non-Member Broker-Dealer
    An EEM that enters an order that is executed for the account of a
non-Member Broker-Dealer will be assessed a fee of $0.45 per contract.
At forty-five cents, MIAX's Transaction Fee per executed contract for
the account of a non-Member Broker-Dealer will be the same as the CBOE
per-contract fee for transactions for the account of a broker-dealer
applicable to option classes included in the Penny Pilot.
    Moreover, other exchanges currently differentiate between Broker-
Dealers (the equivalent of a MIAX non-Member Broker-Dealer), Firms and
``Professional Customers'' (the equivalent of a MIAX non-Priority
Customer) respecting Transaction Fees. For example, the term ``non-
Member Broker-Dealer'' is used by MIAX, and is analogous to the term
``Broker-Dealer'' as used on PHLX. MIAX uses the term ``non-Priority
Customer'' synonymously with the PHLX ``Professional Customer.''
    MIAX's proposed treatment of Transaction Fees for non-Member
Broker-Dealers is similar to that of Broker-Dealers on the PHLX in that
the Transaction Fees applicable to them would be differentiated, and
higher, than those applicable to Firms (who clear as such through OCC)
and MIAX non-Priority Customers, who are subject to the same
restrictions as PHLX Professional Customers (i.e., a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on

average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s)).
    MIAX uses the term ``Firm'' to apply to a transaction for an
account identified by the EEM for clearing in the OCC ``Firm'' range.
PHLX's definition also uses the term ``Firm'' to apply to any
transaction that is identified by a PHLX member or member organization
for clearing in the ``Firm'' range at OCC.\13\ An EEM that enters an
order that is executed for an account identified by the EEM for
clearing in the ``Firm'' range at OCC will be assessed a fee of $0.25
per contract. At twenty-five cents, MIAX's transaction fee per executed
contract for the account of a Firm is lower than PHLX ($0.40 respecting
options in the Penny Pilot) and is higher than CBOE, ISE in non-select
symbols, and NYSE Amex ($0.20 each, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Preamble to PHLX Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, there is precedent to treat non-Member Broker-Dealers (who
are neither OCC members nor members of another options exchange)
differently from Firms and non-Priority Customers respecting
transaction fees.\14\ Accordingly, MIAX believes that, because this
differentiation is already made on PHLX and on NYSE Amex,\15\ MIAX's
proposal to differentiate among these participants raises no new
regulatory issues. The instant MIAX proposal is therefore an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among Exchange members
and other persons using its facilities, and is not unfairly
discriminatory, consistent with Section (6)(b)(4) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., PHLX Pricing Schedule, and NYSE Amex Fee
Schedule.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above Transaction Fees will be effective on and after January
2, 2013.
b. Options Regulatory Fee
    MIAX will assess an Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') to Members in
the amount of $0.0040 per contract side. The per-contract ORF will be
assessed by MIAX to each MIAX Member for all options transactions
executed and cleared, or simply cleared, by the Member, that are
cleared by OCC in the ``customer'' range, regardless of the exchange on
which the transaction occurs. The ORF will be collected indirectly from
Members through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of MIAX.
    The ORF also will be charged for transactions that are not executed
by a Member but are ultimately cleared by a Member. In the case where a
non-Member executes a transaction and a Member clears the transaction,
the ORF will be assessed to the Member who clears the transaction. In
the case where a Member executes a transaction and another Member
clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Member who
clears the transaction. As a practical matter, it is not feasible or
reasonable for the Exchange (or any SRO) to identify each executing
member that submits an order on a trade-by-trade basis. There are
countless executing market participants, and each day such participants
can and often do drop their connection to one market center and
establish themselves as participants on another. It is virtually
impossible for any exchange to identify, and thus assess fees such as
an ORF on, each executing participant on a given trading day.
    Clearing members, however, are distinguished from executing
participants because they remain identified to the Exchange regardless
of the identity of the initiating executing participant, their
location, and the market center on which they execute transactions.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation
of the Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to assess the ORF to
clearing members.
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge the ORF only to
transactions that clear as customer at the OCC.
    The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities
with respect to a Member's' [sic] activities supports applying the ORF
to transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member
executes a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf.
The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including
performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation,
front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading.
These activities span across multiple exchanges.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer
options business, including performing routine surveillances and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated
from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory
fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory
responsibilities with respect to Member compliance with options sales
practice rules have been allocated to the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, LLC (``CBOE'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not
designed to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to monitor MIAX regulatory costs
and revenues at a minimum on an annual basis. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange
will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the
Commission. The Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF
via regulatory circular.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated
persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for
other manipulative conduct by market participants (including non-
Members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot effectively
surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity
across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance
programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across
all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit
violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice
violations/expiring exercise declarations. Also, the Exchange and the
other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated options
audit trail (``COATS'') \17\ system in order to surveil a Member's
activities across markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works
with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG''),\18\ the Exchange shares

information and coordinates inquiries and investigations with other
exchanges designed to address potential intermarket manipulation and
trading abuses. The Exchange's participation in ISG helps it to satisfy
the requirement that it has coordinated surveillance with markets on
which security futures are traded and markets on which any security
underlying security futures are traded to detect manipulation and
insider trading.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by co-operatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
    \19\ See Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to
avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a
Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated
exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their member's
activity, including the activity of those members on MIAX.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Similar regulatory fees have been instituted by PHLX (See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61133 (December 9, 2009), 74 FR
66715 (December 16, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-100)); and ISE (See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61154 (December 11, 2009), 74 FR
67278 (December 18, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-105)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRAs Trading Activity Fee \21\
and the NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, CBOE, PHLX, ISE and BOX ORF. While the
Exchange does not have all the same regulatory responsibilities as
FINRA, the Exchange believes that, like other exchanges that have
adopted an ORF, its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a
Member's activities, irrespective of where their transactions take
place, supports a regulatory fee applicable to transactions on other
markets. Unlike FINRA's Trading Activity Fee, the ORF would apply only
to a Member's customer options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 3402 (June 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF will be effective on and after January 2, 2013.
    In addition to the above changes, the Exchange is proposing
technical numbering amendments to account for the insertion of new
footnotes in the Fee Schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \22\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \23\
in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transaction Fees
    The Exchange believes the fees proposed for transactions on MIAX
are reasonable. MIAX operates within a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily send order flow to any of ten
other competing venues if, among other things, they deem fees at a
particular venue to be unreasonable or excessive. The proposed fee
structure is intended to attract order flow to MIAX by offering market
participants incentives to submit their orders to MIAX.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for MIAX Market Makers to be assessed different
Transaction Fees based on the category of Market Maker being assessed--
that is, Primary Lead Market Maker (``PLMM''), Lead Market Maker
(``LMM'') and Registered Market Maker (``RMM''). In accordance with
MIAX rules, PLMMs have a higher level of obligations and greater
capital requirements than LMMs and RMMs, and LMMs have a higher level
of obligations and greater capital requirements than RMMs. The
transaction fees assessed to each type of Market Maker reflect these
differences in obligations and capital requirements--PLMMs pay lower
fees than LMMs and RMMs, and LMMs pay lower fees than RMMs. MIAX
believes that this tiered fee structure provides incentives for Market
Makers to undertake a higher level of obligation, which should result
in more Market Makers providing a higher level of continuous quoting
and a greater volume of liquidity.
    MIAX believes the proposed Transaction Fees assessed to Market
Makers are reasonable because they are comparable to transaction fees
charged by other options exchanges, and in most cases, fall within the
range of transaction fees charged by other options exchanges.
    The Exchange believes that its proposed Transaction Fees are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are available to
all Market Makers and are reasonably related to the value to the
Exchange that comes with higher market quality and higher levels of
liquidity in the price and volume discovery processes. Such increased
liquidity at the Exchange should allow it to spread its administrative
and infrastructure costs over a greater number of transactions leading
to lower costs per transaction.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for MIAX Market Makers to have generally lower fees than
other professional market participants (referred to as non-Priority
Customers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers, non-MIAX Market Makers, Voluntary
Professionals, and Firms in the Fee Schedule). Market Makers have
obligations that other professional market participants do not. In
particular, they must maintain continuous two-sided markets in the
classes in which they are appointed, and must meet certain minimum
quoting requirements. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate that Market Makers be assessed lower transaction fees since
they provide greater volumes of liquidity to the market. In addition,
MIAX believes the proposed fees charged to Market Makers and other
professional market participants are reasonable because they are, as
detailed in the Purpose section above, comparable to fees that such
accounts are assessed at other competing exchanges.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess discounted Transaction Fees to PLMMs and LMMs
for orders that are directed to them. A Directed LMM or Directed PLMM
that enters into a directed order arrangement with an order flow
provider typically expends substantial time and financial resources in
seeking out and entering into such an agreement. The $0.02 discount,
which is applied equally to the base per-contract rate of an LMM and a
PLMM, is in recognition of the effort on the part of Directed LMMs and
Directed PLMMs to attract directed order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory not to assess a per-contract Transaction Fee to an EEM
that enters an order that is executed for the account of a Priority
Customer, while assessing a Transaction Fee to an EEM that enters an
order that is executed for the account of specified other participants.
A Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or dealer in
securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s). This limitation does not apply to participants on MIAX
whose behavior is substantially similar to that of professionals,
including non-Priority Customers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers, non-MIAX
Market Makers, Voluntary Professionals, and Firms,

who will generally submit a higher number of orders (many of which do
not result in executions) than Priority Customers.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower Transaction Fees to EEMs that submit
orders for the account(s) of Firms and for Public Customers that are
not Priority Customers than for orders for the account(s) of non-MIAX
Market Makers. Market makers that are not MIAX Members do not have the
same quoting or financial obligations as MIAX Market Makers; the
Exchange believes that these obligations entitle MIAX Market Makers to
lower transaction fees than non-MIAX market makers, who do not have the
same obligations.
    The Exchange further believes that, because there is precedent to
treat non-Member Broker-Dealers (who are neither OCC members nor
members of another options exchange) differently from Firms and non-
Priority Customers respecting transaction fees, such differentiation is
not unfairly discriminatory. This differentiation is already made on
PHLX and on NYSE Amex, and the MIAX's proposal to differentiate among
these participants in the same manner as those other options exchanges
therefore raises no new regulatory issues. The instant MIAX proposal is
therefore an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities, and is
not unfairly discriminatory, consistent with Section (6)(b)(4) of the
Act.
ORF
    The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to Members in that
it is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear as
customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures
fairness by assessing fees to those Members that are directly based on
the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating
customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires
greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating
non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and
less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with
administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with
administering the non-customer component (e.g., Member proprietary
transactions) of its regulatory program.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including
performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations,
financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and
enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor, on at least an
annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure
that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does
not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange
will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the
Commission. The Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF
via regulatory circular.
    The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when
combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less
than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent
with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory
purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side. In this
regard, the Exchange believes that the initial level of the fee is
reasonable.

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

    MIAX 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. Unilateral action by MIAX in establishing fees
for services provided to its Members and others using its facilities
will not have an impact on competition. As a new entrant in the already
highly competitive environment for equity options trading, MIAX does
not have the market power necessary to set prices for services that are
unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Act. MIAX's
proposed Transaction Fees and the ORF, as described herein, are
comparable to fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or
similar services.

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

    Written comments were neither 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.\24\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2013-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for

inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-01 and should be
submitted on or before February 19, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority. \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01841 Filed 1-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 159 (Monday, August 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49954-49957]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17874]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0222; Project Identifier AD-2019-00116-E;
Amendment 39-21195; AD 2020-16-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Continental Aerospace Technologies,
Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Continental Motors, Inc.)
Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Continental Aerospace Technologies, Inc. model GTSIO-520-C, GTSIO-520-
D, GTSIO-520-H, GTSIO-520-K, GTSIO-520-L, GTSIO-520-M, GTSIO-520-N, IO-
550-G, IO-550-N, IO-550-P, IO-550-R, IOF-550-N, IOF-550-P, IOF-550-R,
TSIO-520-BE, TSIO-550-A, TSIO-550-B, TSIO-550-C, TSIO-550-E, TSIO-550-
G, TSIO-550-K, TSIO-550-N, TSIOF-550-D, TSIOF-550-J, TSIOF-550-K, and
TSIOF-550-P reciprocating aviation gasoline (AvGas) engines with a
certain cross-flow cylinder assembly installed. This AD was prompted by
reports of in-flight engine failures due to fractured cross-flow
cylinder assemblies. This AD requires visual inspection and, depending
on the results of the inspection, modification or replacement of the
cross-flow cylinder assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 21, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Continental Aerospace Technologies, Inc., 2039 South Broad
Street, Mobile, Alabama 36615; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: http://www.continentalmotors.aero. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0222.

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-
0222; 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 final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Boyce Jones, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Continental
Aerospace

Technologies, Inc. model GTSIO-520-C, GTSIO-520-D, GTSIO-520-H, GTSIO-
520-K, GTSIO-520-L, GTSIO-520-M, GTSIO-520-N, IO-550-G, IO-550-N, IO-
550-P, IO-550-R, IOF-550-N, IOF-550-P, IOF-550-R, TSIO-520-BE, TSIO-
550-A, TSIO-550-B, TSIO-550-C, TSIO-550-E, TSIO-550-G, TSIO-550-K,
TSIO-550-N, TSIOF-550-D, TSIOF-550-J, TSIOF-550-K, and TSIOF-550-P
reciprocating AvGas engines with a certain cross-flow cylinder assembly
installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2020
(85 FR 21336). The NPRM was prompted by reports of in-flight engine
failures due to fractured cross-flow cylinder assemblies. The NPRM
proposed to require visual inspection of the cross-flow cylinder
assembly and, depending on the results of the inspection, modification
or replacement of the cross-flow cylinder assembly. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received
on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Revise Compliance

    An individual commenter requested that the FAA revise the beginning
of paragraph (g)(2), Required Actions, of this AD from ``If the engine
has 500 engine operating hours or greater on the effective date of this
AD . . .'' to ``If the engine has 500 engine operating hours or greater
after the effective date of this AD . . .'' The commenter reasoned that
the AD, as written, could allow aircraft operated exclusively under 14
CFR part 91 with fewer than 500 engine operating hours on the effective
date of the AD to fly for an unlimited number of engine operating hours
until the next annual inspection, as the 100-hour inspection is not
required for part 91 operations.
    The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees that part 91 operators may
fly their aircraft for an unlimited number of engine operating hours
between annual inspections. Historically, the typical part 91 operator
flies fewer than 100 engine operating hours per year, however. The FAA
has reviewed the specific scenario outlined by the commenter and
evaluated it against the associated risk assessment. The FAA disagrees
with the commenter's request to revise the language in paragraph
(g)(2), Required Actions, of this AD. Any aircraft with an affected
engine, regardless of how they are being operated, must comply within
the compliance times contained in the Required Actions section of this
AD. All affected engines with fewer than 500 engine operating hours on
the effective date of this AD must perform the visual inspection of the
cross-flow cylinder assembly at the next 100-hour inspection or the
next annual inspection, depending on aircraft operation. All affected
engines with 500 engine operating hours or greater on the effective
date of this AD must perform the visual inspection of the cross-flow
cylinder assembly at the next maintenance event, not to exceed 50
engine operating hours, after the effective date of the AD. The FAA did
not change this AD.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed except for minor editorial
changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Continental Aerospace Technologies, Inc. Mandatory
Service Bulletin (MSB) 18-08, Revision B, dated January 13, 2020. The
MSB describes procedures for inspection, modification, or replacement
of the cross-flow cylinder assembly. This service information 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4,000 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual inspection of the cross-flow     2 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $170        $680,000
 cylinder assembly.                      hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
modification or replacement of the cross-flow cylinder assembly that
would be required based on the results of the visual inspection. The
FAA has no way of determining the number of cross-flow cylinder
assemblies that might need this modification or replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modify the cross-flow cylinder assembly.......  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85              $0             $85
Replace the cross-flow cylinder assembly......  11.5 work-hours x $85 per hour =        1,933.28        2,910.78
                                                 $977.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this 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 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2020-16-11 Continental Aerospace Technologies, Inc. (Type
Certificate previously held by Continental Motors, Inc.): Amendment
39-21195; Docket No. FAA-2020-0222; Project Identifier AD-2019-
00116-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 21, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Continental Aerospace Technologies, Inc.
(Type Certificate previously held by Continental Motors, Inc.) model
GTSIO-520-C, GTSIO-520-D, GTSIO-520-H, GTSIO-520-K, GTSIO-520-L,
GTSIO-520-M, GTSIO-520-N, IO-550-G, IO-550-N, IO-550-P, IO-550-R,
IOF-550-N, IOF-550-P, IOF-550-R, TSIO-520-BE, TSIO-550-A, TSIO-550-
B, TSIO-550-C, TSIO-550-E, TSIO-550-G, TSIO-550-K, TSIO-550-N,
TSIOF-550-D, TSIOF-550-J, TSIOF-550-K, and TSIOF-550-P reciprocating
aviation gasoline (AvGas) engines, originally manufactured, rebuilt,
or modified with a cross-flow cylinder assembly replacement, on or
after November 1, 2014, and with a cross-flow cylinder assembly,
part number (P/N) 658538, 658540, 658542, 658591, 658595, 658613,
658624, 658539, 658541, 658590, 658594, 658603, 658623, or 658630,
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 8530, Reciprocating
Cylinder Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight engine failures due
to fractured cross-flow cylinder assemblies. The FAA is issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the engine. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in failure of the engine, in-flight
shutdown, and forced landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) If the engine has fewer than 500 engine operating hours on
the effective date of this AD, no later than the next scheduled 100-
hour inspection or next scheduled annual inspection after the
effective date of this AD, whichever is applicable based on the type
of aircraft operation, perform a visual inspection of the cross-flow
cylinder assembly using paragraphs III.1 through III.3, Action
Required, of Continental Aerospace Technologies, Inc. Mandatory
Service Bulletin (MSB) 18-08, Revision B, dated January 13, 2020
(``Continental Aerospace Technologies MSB18-08B'').
    (i) If the radius corner angle of the cross-flow cylinder
assembly shows casting flash build-up or a sharp radius edge, modify
the cross-flow cylinder assembly using paragraphs III.4 through
III.8, Action Required, of Continental Aerospace Technologies MSB
18-08B; or
    (ii) If a fissure, crack or physical damage is identified,
remove the cross-flow cylinder assembly and replace with a part
eligible for installation.
    (2) If the engine has 500 engine operating hours or greater on
the effective date of this AD, at the next maintenance event after
the effective date of this AD, not to exceed 50 engine operating
hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a visual
inspection of the cross-flow cylinder assembly using paragraphs
III.1 through III.3, Action Required, of Continental Aerospace
Technologies MSB18-08B.
    (i) If the radius corner angle of the cross-flow cylinder
assembly shows casting flash build-up or a sharp radius edge, modify
the cross-flow cylinder assembly using paragraphs III.4 through
III.8, Action Required, of Continental Aerospace Technologies MSB
18-08B; or
    (ii) If a fissure, crack or physical damage is identified,
remove the cross-flow cylinder assembly and replace with a part
eligible for installation.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any cross-
flow cylinder assembly having a P/N identified in paragraph (c) of
this AD on any affected engine unless the cross-flow cylinder
assembly has been visually inspected and modified using paragraph
III, Action Required, of Continental Aerospace Technologies MSB18-
08B.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    The reporting requirement in paragraph III, Action Required, of
Continental Aerospace Technologies MSB18-08B is not required by this
AD.

(j) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, ``the next maintenance event''
is the next scheduled 100-hour/annual inspection, overhaul, or the
next time the airplane enters maintenance for a non-engine issue,
whichever occurs first.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, ``modify the cross-flow cylinder
assembly'' is the removal of the casting material build-up by
blending the cross-flow cylinder assembly radius corner.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the visual inspection and modification
that is required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the inspection or
modification was performed before the effective date of this AD
using Continental Motors Aircraft Engine Service Bulletin 18-08,
Revision A, dated January 11, 2019.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
    (2) 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.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Boyce Jones,
Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Continental Aerospace Technologies, Inc. Mandatory Service
Bulletin 18-08, Revision B, dated January 13, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Continental Aerospace Technologies, Inc. service
information identified in this AD, contact Continental Aerospace
Technologies, Inc., 2039 South Broad Street, Mobile, Alabama 36615;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: http://www.continentalmotors.aero.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 4, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-17874 Filed 8-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 69539]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Order of Suspension of Trading; In The Matter of American Realty
Funds Corporation

November 15, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
American Realty Funds Corporation (``American Realty'') because of
questions concerning the accuracy of publicly disseminated information
in the company's public filings and financial statements. American
Realty is a Tennessee corporation based in Bay City, Michigan. Its
stock is quoted on the OTCBB under the symbol ANFDE.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on
November 15, 2012 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on November 29, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28147 Filed 11-15-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21863-21864]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08491]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0335; FRL-9944-91-OW]

Extension of Public Comment Period for the Draft EPA-USGS
Technical Report: Protecting Aquatic Life From Effects of Hydrologic
Alteration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the
comment period for the draft technical report: Protecting Aquatic Life
from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration. In response to stakeholder
requests, the comment period will be extended for an additional 45
days, from May 3, 2016 to June 17, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2015-0335, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be

accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Eignor, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Office of Water (Mail Code 4304T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10620), EPA and
United States Geological Survey (USGS) announced the availability of
the draft technical report: Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of
Hydrologic Alteration, and opened a 60-day public review and comment
period to solicit additional scientific views, data, and information
regarding the science and technical approach used in the derivation of
the draft technical document.
    The original deadline to submit comments was May 2, 2016. This
action extends the comment period for 45 days. Written comments must
now be received by June 17, 2016. The draft report and other supporting
materials may also be viewed and downloaded from EPA's Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/aquatic-life-ambient-water-quality-criteria#draft.

    Dated: April 6, 2016.
Joel Beauvais,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2016-08491 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P