[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21259-21261]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0333; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-025-AD;
Amendment 39-18474; AD 2016-07-29]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously
Eurocopter France) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Model EC225LP, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2
helicopters. This AD requires inspecting each TECALEMIT flexible
hydraulic hose (hose) installed in the main gearbox (MGB) compartment
and replacing the hose if a crack, cut, or other damage exists. This AD
was prompted by reports about the loss of in-flight hydraulic pressure
on Eurocopter France helicopters. The actions of this AD are intended
to prevent loss of the hydraulic system and consequently, loss of
helicopter control.

DATES: This AD is effective May 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (972) 641-
3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review
the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On June 2, 2014, at 79 FR 31229, the Federal Register published our
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters
(previously Eurocopter France) Model EC225LP, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1,
and AS332L2 helicopters with a TECALEMIT MGB hose installed.
    The NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting each hose
installed in the MGB compartment and replacing the hose before further
flight if a crack, cut, or other damage exists that allows you to see
the metal braid underneath. If a crack, cut, or other damage exists on
the right-hand hydraulic system that does not allow you to see the
metal braid underneath, the NPRM proposed replacing the hose within 300
hours TIS. If a crack, cut, or other damage exists on the left-hand
hydraulic system that does not allow you to see the metal braid
underneath, the NPRM proposed replacing the hose within 600 hours TIS.
The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of a hose,
which could result in loss of the hydraulic system and consequently,
loss of helicopter control.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0069, dated March 18, 2013,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter (now
Airbus Helicopters) Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2,
and EC225LP helicopters. EASA advises that in-flight losses of
hydraulic pressure were reported on these helicopters because of
``significant'' tears on the protection sheath of MGB hydraulic
flexible ``pipes'' manufactured by TECALEMIT. This condition could lead
to simultaneous left-hand and right-hand hydraulic system leakage, loss
of the hydraulic system, and consequently, loss of helicopter control
could occur, EASA advises.
    The NPRM incorrectly stated that the Model AS332C1 helicopter did
not have an FAA type certificate. We plan additional rulemaking to
supersede this AD to include the Model AS332C1 helicopter.

Comments

    After our NPRM (79 FR 31229, June 2, 2014) was published, we
received comments from one commenter.

Request

    Airbus Helicopters noted that the proposed AD does not mention
Airbus Helicopters service information specifying installation of non-
TECALEMIT hoses, which it considers terminating action for the
repetitive inspections of the hoses. Airbus Helicopters requested that
the AD reflect that action. We agree with the comment but disagree that
a change to the AD is necessary. Because the AD is only applicable if a
TECALEMIT hose is installed, replacing the hose as described by Airbus
Helicopters in its comment would serve as ``terminating action'' for
the required inspections. If a non-TECALEMIT hose is installed, the AD
does not apply.
    Airbus Helicopters stated that the proposed AD would require that a
damaged hose sheath on right-hand hydraulic system be replaced within
300 hours time-in-service (TIS) and a damaged hose sheath on the left-
hand system be replaced within 600 hours TIS. Airbus Helicopters
requested that we change these proposed requirements to replacing the
hose within 300 hours TIS if the hose sheath is damaged on both the
right- and left-hand system and replacing the hose within 600 hours TIS
if the hose sheath is damaged on only one side. We do not agree. The
right-hand hose is subject to higher pressure and therefore we
determined more stringent requirements for the right-hand hose are
necessary than for the left-hand hose.
    Lastly, Airbus Helicopters requested that we extend the repetitive
inspection to every 1,200 hours TIS after the initial inspection at 110
hours TIS. When asked for additional information, Airbus Helicopters
stated that no discrepancies have been found as a result of the
inspections on its EC225 fleet, and that most of its AS332 fleet that
are operating have complied with the service information. We disagree.
Airbus Helicopters provided no support for its position that the hoses
perform safely for 1,200 hours TIS after the initial inspection.
Because the root cause of the cracking is unknown, we have determined
that inspecting the hoses every 110 hours TIS is necessary.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral

agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified
us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing
this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA, reviewed
the relevant information, considered the comments received, and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air
safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as
proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires a one-time inspection, while this AD requires
that the inspection of the hoses be repeated every 110 hours TIS. The
EASA AD requires that if severe damage is found in a hose on the right-
hand hydraulic system, then the hose be replaced before the next
flight, while this AD requires this regardless of whether the hose is
on the right-hand or left-hand hydraulic system. EASA has set some
compliance times based on months. We set compliance times based only on
hours TIS.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. EC225-05-027, Revision
1, dated July 17, 2013, for Model EC225LP helicopters and SB No. AS332-
05.00.92, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2013, for Model AS332C, AS332C1,
AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2 and military Model AS332B, AS332B1, AS332F1,
AS332M and AS332M1 helicopters. The SBs state Eurocopter received a
report concerning the loss of pressure in the left hand hydraulic
system in-flight. Hydraulic fluid was found in the cabin, though the
flight was completed without further incident. An examination of the
hydraulic system showed that the hose located between the forward
servo-control and the hydraulic manifold had burst. Further
investigations have shown corrosion on the metal braid located under
the fire-resistant sheath of hoses manufactured by TECALEMIT. The
corrosion may be caused by the deterioration or gaping of the fire-
resistant sheath at the hose ends, enabling humidity to enter between
the sheath and the metal braid. As a result, SB No. EC225-05-027 and SB
No. AS332-05.00.92 call for inspecting each hose for a notch, tear,
crack, or scuff mark, and replacing any damaged hose.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 19 helicopters of U.S. Registry
and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates,
we expect the following costs:
     Inspecting the hoses installed in a MGB compartment
requires 1.5 work-hours for a labor cost of about $128 per helicopter,
$2,432 for the U.S. fleet.
     Replacing a hose requires 2.5 work-hours for a labor cost
of about $213. Parts cost $2,000 for a total cost of $2,213 per
helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters 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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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):

2016-07-29 Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France):
Amendment 39-18474; Docket No. FAA-2014-0333; Directorate Identifier
2013-SW-025-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP, AS332C,
AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters with a TECALEMIT main gear
box (MGB) hydraulic flexible hose (hose) installed, certificated in
any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as loss of hydraulic
pressure because of the failure of a hose. This condition could
result in loss of the hydraulic system and consequently, loss of
helicopter control.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 16, 2016.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 110 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS, visually inspect each
TECALEMIT hose installed in the MGB compartment for a cut, crack, or
other damage.
    (2) If there is a cut, crack, or any other damage in the hose
sheath that allows you to see the metal braid underneath when
pinching or twisting the sheath, replace the hose before further
flight.
    (3) If there is a cut, crack, or any other damage in the hose
sheath on the right hand hydraulic system that does not allow you to
see the metal braid underneath, replace the hose within 300 hours
TIS.
    (4) If there is a cut, crack, or any other damage in the hose
sheath on the left hand hydraulic system that does not allow you to
see the metal braid underneath, replace the hose within 600 hours
TIS.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
10101

Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Service Bulletin (SB) No. EC225-05-027 and SB No.
AS332-05.00.92, both Revision 1 and dated July 17, 2013; Eurocopter
SB No. AS332-29.00.17 and SB No. EC225-29-005, both Revision 0 and
both dated June 21, 2013; and Eurocopter Information Notice No.
2506-I-29, Revision 2, dated July 24, 2013; which are not
incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the
subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You
may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0069, dated March 18, 2013. You may
view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. FAA-2014-0333.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2910, Main
Hydraulic System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 31, 2016.
James A. Grigg,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07983 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 243 (Thursday, December 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82008-82010]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27721]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90640; File No. SR-PEARL-2020-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule

December 11, 2020.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on December 1, 2020, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX
PEARL'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL'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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for the Exchange's
options market to amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges
within the routing fee table in Section 1)b) of the Fee Schedule.
    Currently, the Exchange assesses routing fees based upon (i) the
origin type of the order, (ii) whether or not it is an order for
standard option classes in the Penny Interval Program \3\ (``Penny
classes'') or an order for standard option classes which are not in the
Penny Interval Program (``Non-Penny classes'') (or other explicitly
identified classes), and (iii) to which away market it is being routed.
This assessment practice is identical to the routing fees assessment
practice currently utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC

(``MIAX'') and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald''). This is also
similar to the methodologies utilized by other competing options
exchanges, such as the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX''), in
assessing routing fees. Cboe BZX has exchange groupings in its fee
schedule, similar to those of the Exchange, whereby several exchanges
are grouped into the same category, dependent on the order's origin
type and whether it is a Penny or Non-Penny class.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88992 (June 2,
2020), 85 FR 35142 (June 8, 2020) (SR-PEARL-2020-06) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Exchange Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for
Trading, and Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum Trading
Increments, To Conform the Rules to Section 3.1 of the Plan for the
Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed To
Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options).
    \4\ See Cboe BZX Fee Schedule under ``Fee Codes and Associated
Fees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of conducting a periodic review of the current
transaction fees and rebates charged by away markets, the Exchange has
determined to amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges within
the routing fee table to better reflect the associated costs of routing
customer orders to those options exchanges for execution. In
particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the seventh ``Routed, Public
Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program'' exchange
grouping to move Nasdaq MRX from the seventh exchange grouping into the
eighth ``Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-
Penny Program'' exchange grouping. The impact of this proposed change
will be that the routing fee for Public Customer orders that are not
Priority Customer orders in the Penny Program, that are routed to
Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``Nasdaq MRX''), will increase from $1.15 to $1.25.
The Exchange notes that no options exchanges were removed from the
routing fee table entirely, with the only change being the change in
categorization for Nasdaq MRX. The purpose of the proposed rule change
is to adjust the routing fee for certain orders routed to Nasdaq MRX to
reflect the associated costs for that routed execution.
    Accordingly, with the proposed change, the routing fee table will
be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Description                              Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE American,       $0.15
 BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX, Nasdaq PHLX
 (except SPY), Nasdaq BX Options.............................
Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca             0.65
 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq ISE,
 NOM, Nasdaq PHLX (SPY only), MIAX Emerald...................
Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE              0.15
 American, BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq
 MRX, MIAX, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq BX Options...................
Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca         1.00
 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, NOM, MIAX
 Emerald.....................................................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer,            0.65
 Penny Program, to: NYSE American, NYSE Arca Options, Cboe
 BZX Options, BOX, Cboe, Cboe C2, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq
 GEMX, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Emerald, MIAX, NOM,
 Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq BX Options..............................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-       1.00
 Penny Program, to: NYSE American, MIAX, Cboe, Nasdaq PHLX,
 Nasdaq ISE, Cboe EDGX Options...............................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-       1.15
 Penny Program, to: Cboe C2, NOM, BOX, Nasdaq BX Options,
 MIAX Emerald................................................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-       1.25
 Penny Program, to: Cboe BZX Options, NYSE Arca Options,
 Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq MRX.....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining to amend its Routing Fees, the Exchange took into
account transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to
which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing
costs,\5\ administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated
with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated
routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs
associated with the use of these services are included in the routing
fees specified in the Fee Schedule. This routing fees structure is not
only similar to the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, but
is also comparable to the structures in place at other competing
options exchanges, such as Cboe BZX.\6\ The Exchange's routing fee
structure approximates the Exchange's costs associated with routing
orders to away markets. The per-contract transaction fee amount
associated with each grouping closely approximates the Exchange's all-
in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount) to execute that
corresponding contract at that corresponding exchange. The Exchange
notes that in determining whether to adjust certain groupings of
options exchanges in the routing fee table, the Exchange considered the
transaction fees and rebates assessed by away markets, and determined
to amend the grouping of exchanges that assess transaction fees for
routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure
applies to all of the groupings in the routing fees table. By utilizing
the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX
and MIAX Emerald, the Exchange's Members \7\ will be assessed routing
fees in a similar manner. The Exchange believes that this structure
will minimize any confusion as to the method of assessing routing fees
between the three exchanges. The Exchange notes that its affiliates,
MIAX and MIAX Emerald, will file to make the same proposed routing fee
change for Nasdaq MRX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The OCC amended its clearing fee from $0.01 per contract
side to $0.02 per contract side. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 71769 (March 21, 2014), 79 FR 17214 (March 27, 2014) (SR-OCC-
2014-05).
    \6\ See supra note 4. The Cboe BZX fee schedule has exchange
groupings, whereby several exchanges are grouped into the same
category, dependent on the order's Origin type and whether it is a
Penny or Non-Penny class. For example, Cboe BZX fee code RR covers
routed customer orders in Non-Penny classes to NYSE Arca, Cboe C2,
Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq Gemini, MIAX Emerald, MIAX PEARL, or NOM, with a
single fee of $1.25 per contract. Id.
    \7\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization that
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in that it is designed to

promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to the exchange groupings
of options exchanges within the routing fee table furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change will
continue to apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to
routing fees. The Exchange believes the proposed change to the routing
fee table exchange groupings furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change
seeks to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange when routing
customer orders to away markets on behalf of Members and does so in the
same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The costs
to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily
includes transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to
which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's
clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The
Exchange believes that the proposed re-categorization of certain
exchange groupings would enable the Exchange to recover the costs it
incurs to route orders to Nasdaq MRX. The per-contract transaction fee
amount associated with each grouping approximates the Exchange's all-in
cost (plus an additional, non-material amount) to execute the
corresponding contract at the corresponding exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes its
proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings is intended to
enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route orders to
away markets, particularly Nasdaq MRX. The Exchange does not believe
that this proposal imposes any unnecessary burden on competition
because it seeks to recoup costs incurred by the Exchange when routing
orders to away markets on behalf of Members and other exchanges have
similar routing fee structures.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 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-PEARL-2020-31 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-PEARL-2020-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2020-31, and should be submitted
on or before January 7, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27721 Filed 12-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5192-5194]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2012-1006]

Information Collection Requests to Office of Management and
Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collections of information: 1625-0065,
Offshore Supply Vessels--Title 46 CFR Subchapter L; and 1625-0105,
Regulated Navigation Area; Reporting Requirements for Barges Loaded
with Certain Dangerous Cargoes, Inland Rivers, Eighth Coast Guard
District and the Illinois Waterway, Ninth Coast Guard District. Our
ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public.
Before submitting these ICRs to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2012-1006] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, US COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND ST SW STOP 7101, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or
decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collections. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2012-1006], and
must be received by March 25, 2013. We will post all comments received,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2012-1006], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2012-1006'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2012-1006'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Offshore Supply Vessels--Title 46 CFR Subchapter L.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0065.
    Summary: Title 46 U.S.C. 3305 and 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard
to prescribe safety regulations. Title 46 CFR Subchapter L promulgates
marine safety regulations for offshore supply vessels (OSV).
    Need: The OSV posting/marking requirements are needed to provide
instructions to those onboard of actions to be taken in the event of an
emergency. The reporting/recordkeeping requirements verify compliance
with regulations without Coast Guard presence to witness routine
matters, including OSVs based overseas as an alternative to Coast Guard
re-inspection.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 2,068 hours a year.
    2. Title: Regulated Navigation Area; Reporting Requirements for
Barges Loaded with Certain Dangerous Cargoes, Inland Rivers, Eighth
Coast Guard District and the Illinois Waterway, Ninth Coast Guard
District.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0105.
    Summary: The Coast Guard requires position and intended movement
reporting, and fleeting operations reporting, from barges carrying
certain dangerous cargoes (CDCs) in the inland

rivers within the Eighth and Ninth Coast Guard Districts.
    Need: This information is used to ensure port safety and security
and to ensure the uninterrupted flow of commerce.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners, agents, masters, towing vessel operators, or
persons in charge of barges loaded with CDCs or having CDC residue
operating on the inland rivers located within the Eighth and Ninth
Coast Guard Districts.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 2,196 hours a year.

    Dated: January 17, 2013.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2013-01356 Filed 1-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P