[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22735-22737]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08645]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R01-OW-2020-0216; FRL-10008-65-Region 1]

Notice of Availability of Proposed Modifications to NPDES General
Permits for Stormwater Discharges From Small Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems in Massachusetts and New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Proposed Permit Modifications;
Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing this
notice of availability (NOA) for proposed limited modifications to the
final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general
permits for discharges of stormwater from small Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in Massachusetts and New Hampshire under the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposed modifications represent the results
of mediation supervised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit Mediation Program between EPA and petitioners the
National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB), the Home Builders and
Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, Inc. (HBRAMA), the New
Hampshire Home Builders Association (NHHBA), the Center for Regulatory
Reasonableness (CRR), the Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources
Stewardship (MCWRS), the Town of Franklin, Massachusetts (Franklin),
the City of Lowell, Massachusetts (Lowell), the Conservation Law
Foundation (CLF), and the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA).
EPA and the petitioners have entered into settlement agreements that
include commitments for EPA to propose certain modifications to the
2016 Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit and the 2017 New Hampshire
Small MS4 General Permit, and then to take final action on each
proposal.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed permit modifications must be
received by June 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R01-OW-2020-0216, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The 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. The EPA generally will 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, please contact the persons identified in the For Further
Information Contact section. For 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: Newton Tedder, Water Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, MC 06-
4 Boston, MA 02109; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    Suzanne Warner, Water Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, MC 06-4, Boston, MA 02109;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Permit Modifications

    On April 4, 2016, EPA issued a final NPDES general permit for
discharges of stormwater from small MS4s in Massachusetts (the MA MS4
Permit) under CWA section 402(p). 33 U.S.C. 1342(p). On July 18, 2016,
CRR filed a petition for review of the permit in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. CLF, CRWA, MCWRS, Franklin, NAHB, HBRAMA,
and the City of Lowell also filed petitions for review of the permit,
all of which were consolidated with CRR's petition in the D.C. Circuit.
Center for Regulatory Reasonableness, et al. v. EPA, No. 16-1246 (DC
Cir.) (2016 Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit consolidated cases).
On January 18, 2017, EPA issued a final NPDES general permit for
discharges of stormwater from small MS4s in New Hampshire (the NH MS4
Permit). On February 1, 2017, CLF filed a petition for review of the
permit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. CRR, NAHB,
and NHHBA later filed petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit. The
First Circuit then transferred the CLF petition to the D.C. Circuit,
where the D.C. Circuit consolidated it with the CRR, NAHB, and NHHBA
petitions. Center for Regulatory Reasonableness et. al v. EPA,
Conservation Law Foundation, Intervenor No. 17-1060 (DC Cir.) (2017 New
Hampshire Small MS4 General Permit consolidated cases). The parties to
both cases entered into mediation in 2017, and the D.C. Circuit has
held the cases in abeyance. On December 27, 2019, EPA published three
proposed settlement agreements in the Federal Register for a 30-day
public comment period. See ``Proposed Settlement Agreements, Clean
Water Act Claims,'' 84 FR 71407 (Dec. 27, 2019). EPA's planned proposed
permit modifications to the Massachusetts and New Hampshire permits and
statements of basis describing those proposed modifications were
attached as Exhibits A and B to the Massachusetts and New Hampshire
proposed settlement agreements. EPA and the petitioners executed the
settlement agreements on April 15, 2020. The first two settlement

agreements describe the modifications that EPA is proposing to the MA
MS4 Permit and NH MS4 Permit. Pursuant to the settlement agreements,
the proposed permit modifications reflect the substantive agreements
that parties reached during mediation. In the settlement agreements,
the petitioners agree not to submit adverse public comments on the
Draft Permit Modifications, except that the Petitioners reserve their
rights to submit any form of comment on EPA's proposed modification to
the NH MS4 permit Part 2.3.6.a, and the definitions of ``new
development'' and ``redevelopment'' in NH MS4 permit Appendix A. The
agreements specify that EPA will take final action on each proposed
modification within nine months of posting this NOA of the Draft Permit
Modifications; that petitioners will then dismiss their current
petitions for review with prejudice; and that petitioners agree not to
challenge EPA's respective final actions if they modify the permits in
a manner substantially similar to the proposed modifications (with one
exception, discussed in the New Hampshire settlement agreement). The
third settlement agreement commits Lowell, Massachusetts to voluntarily
dismiss its petition without prejudice and commits EPA to process
Lowell's individual permit application and then to take final action on
Lowell's individual permit application. Today's notice includes only
the proposed MA MS4 and NH MS4 proposed permit modifications. EPA will
propose an individual permit for Lowell at a later date.
    EPA is reopening, reexamining, and accepting comments on only the
parts of the MA MS4 and NH MS4 permits that the proposed modifications
specify. In the MA MS4 permit, only the following permit parts are open
for modification and comment: parts 2.0; 2.1; 2.1.1; 2.1.2.a; 2.2.;
2.2.2; 2.3.3; 2.3.5; 2.3.6; 2.3.7.a; 2.3.7.b; 4.1; 4.4; Appendix F part
A.I; Appendix F part A.II; Appendix F Attachments 2 and 3; and Appendix
H. In the NH MS4 permit, only the following permit parts are open for
modification and comment: 2.0; 2.1; 2.1.1; 2.1.2.a; 2.2.; 2.2.2
(paragraphs 2 and 3); <IP_ADDRESS>; 2.3.5; <IP_ADDRESS>; 2.3.6.a; <IP_ADDRESS>.b.iii;
3.1.3; 4.1.4; <IP_ADDRESS>; Appendix A; Appendix F part III and Attachment
3; and Appendix H.
    EPA has emailed notifications of the Draft Permit Modifications to
regulated parties, parties to this mediation, and other interested
parties on EPA Region 1's NPDES permit mailing list. For a period of
forty-five (45) days following the date of publication of this notice,
the Agency will accept written comments on the proposed permit
modifications. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12(a), EPA may hold a public
hearing during the comment period for any interested persons to submit
oral comments. If EPA determines there is sufficient interest in a
public hearing, EPA will post the details of the public hearing at EPA
Region 1's website and will notify via email the petitioners, eligible
permittees, and any other party who requests to be notified. EPA has
requested that Massachusetts and New Hampshire provide a water quality
certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1341. After considering any significant public comments on the permit
sections that are open for proposed modification, EPA will take final
action on the Draft Permit Modifications within nine months of the
Agency's posting of the NOAs of the Draft Permit Modifications on its
website.
    Commenters must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and
submit all reasonably available arguments supporting their position by
the close of the public comment period. Any supporting material which
is submitted shall be included in full and may not be incorporated by
reference, unless they are already part of the administrative record in
this proceeding, or consist of state or federal statutes and
regulations, EPA documents of general applicability, or other generally
available reference materials.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Permit
Modifications

    A. How can I get a copy of the proposed permit modifications? The
official public docket for this action, EPA-R01-2020-0216, contains
copies of the proposed permit modifications and statements of basis.
These documents are also posted on EPA Region 1's website at https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/npdes-stormwater-permit-program-new-england#smallms4program. The official public docket is available for
public viewing at U.S. EPA Region 1, John W. McCormack Building, 5 Post
Office Square, Boston, MA 02109. Please contact the persons listed in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the
appropriate docket identification number then select ``search.'' It is
important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the
comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket.
    EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted
material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's
electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper
form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials
may be available electronically, you may still access any of the
publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will

be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official
public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.

    Dated: April 17, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2020-08645 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30761-30762]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0097; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision that Nonconforming
Model Year 1991 BMW M3 Convertible Passenger Cars Are Eligible for
Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
nonconforming model year (MY) 1991 BMW M3 convertible passenger cars
that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for
importation into the United States because they have safety features
that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all
such standards.

DATES: June 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to: West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: Logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times give above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78)
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS, and has no
substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, shall be refused
admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the
motor vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of
being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive
test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. of Santa Ana, CA (Registered
Importer R90-007) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming
MY 1991 BMW M3 convertible passenger cars are eligible for importation
into the United States.
    G&K noted in its petition that although conforming MY 1991 BMW M3
vehicles were not sold in the U.S., NHTSA has determined that
nonconforming MY 1989 BMW M3 vehicles are eligible for importation. G&K
compared the nonconforming MY 1991 BMW M3 vehicles to the nonconforming
MY 1989 BMW M3 vehicles that have been determined eligible for
importation, and based its arguments that the 1991 BMW M3 vehicles
conform to many applicable FMVSS, and are capable of being altered to
meet the remainder of the applicable FMVSS, in part, on the
similarities between the MY 1989 and MY 1991 vehicles.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified MY 1991
BMW M3 convertible passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform
to: Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter
Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect; 103 Windshield Defrosting
and Defogging Systems; 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems; 105
Hydraulic Brake Systems; 106 Brake Hoses; 107 Reflective Surfaces; 109
New Pneumatic Tires; 113 Hood Latch System; 115 Vehicle Identification
Number--Basic Requirements; 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids; 118 Power-
Operated Window Systems; 124 Accelerator Control Systems; 201 Occupant
Protection in Interior Impact; 202 Head Restraints; 204 Steering
Control Rearward Displacement; 205 Glazing Materials; 206 Door Locks
and Door Retention Components; 207 Seating Systems; 209 Seat Belt
Assemblies; 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel
Disks, and Hub Caps; 212 Windshield Mounting; 214 Side Impact
Protection; 216 Roof Crush Resistance; 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion;
301 Fuel System Integrity; and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: addition of the word
``BRAKE'' to the brake system warning indicator lamp located on the
instrument cluster.

    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment: installation of U.S.-model high mounted stop lamp.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: installation of a tire
information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: replacement of the passenger
side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component or inscription of the
required warning statement on the face of that mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: installation of a supplemental
key warning buzzer, or activation of the U.S.-version software to meet
the requirements of this standard.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: installation of a seat
belt warning symbol in the dash, a U.S.-model airbag system, and U.S.-
model knee bolsters.
    The petitioner also states that a vehicle identification plate must
be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to meet the
requirements of 49 CFR part 565 and that a certification label must be
affixed to the driver's door jamb to meet the requirements of 49 CFR
part 567.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Issued On: May 21, 2015.
Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-12967 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 88 (Monday, May 10, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24780-24783]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0348; Project Identifier 2018-SW-076-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Agusta S.p.A.) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2011-18-52 for certain Agusta S.p.A. (now Leonardo S.p.a.) Model AB139
and AW139 helicopters. AD 2011-18-52 requires revising the life limit
for certain part-numbered tail rotor (T/R) blades, updating the
helicopter's historical records, repetitively inspecting each T/R blade
for a crack or damage, and depending on the results, replacing the T/R
blade. Since the FAA

issued AD 2011-18-52, the manufacturer developed improved T/R blades
using different materials and established life limits for each improved
blade. This proposed AD would retain certain requirements from AD 2011-
18-52, revise certain requirements from AD 2011-18-52, and expand the
applicability to include the newly-designed T/R blades. The actions of
this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 24,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Leonardo
S.p.a. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale
G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-
225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2021-
0348; 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 proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European
Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager,
Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section, General
Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0348; Project Identifier
2018-SW-076-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to, Matt
Fuller, AD Program Manager, Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness
Products Section, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued Emergency AD 2011-18-52 on August 25, 2011, which
was published as a Final rule; request for comments, on April 18, 2012
(77 FR 23109) (AD 2011-18-52). AD 2011-18-52 applies to Agusta S.p.A.
(now Leonardo S.p.a.) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with a T/R
blade part number (P/N) 3G6410A00131 or P/N 4G6410A00131 installed. AD
2011-18-52 requires, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), establishing
a life limit of 600 hours TIS or 1,500 takeoff and landing cycles
(cycles), whichever occurs first, on the affected T/R blades and
updating the helicopter's historical records. If a T/R blade's total
number of cycles is unknown, determining the T/R blade cycles by
multiplying the T/R blade's hours TIS by 4 is required. For a T/R blade
that, on the effective date of the AD, has already exceeded 600 hours
TIS or 1,500 cycles, the AD requires replacing the T/R blade with an
airworthy T/R blade within 5 hours TIS.
    AD 2011-18-52 also requires, within 25 hours TIS, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, inspecting the T/R blade for a
crack or damage that exceeds the limits of the applicable maintenance
manual. The inspection must be accomplished using a mirror, magnifying
glass (5X or greater), and light source; or borescope. If there is a
crack, or if there is damage that exceeds the limits of the applicable
maintenance manual, AD 2011-18-52 requires, before further flight,
replacing the T/R blade with an airworthy T/R blade.
    AD 2011-18-52 was prompted by a fatal accident involving an Agusta
Model AW139 helicopter, which may have been caused by cracks in a T/R
blade. EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued EASA Emergency AD 2011-0156-E, dated August 25,
2011 (EASA AD 2011-0156-E) to require repetitive inspections and
reducing the life limit of the T/R blades. According to EASA, this
condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in failure of a
T/R blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Actions Since AD 2011-18-52 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2011-18-52, EASA issued a series of ADs as
follows:
     EASA AD 2012-0030, dated February 17, 2012 (EASA AD 2012-
0030), which superseded Emergency AD 2011-0156-E, advised that the
manufacturer developed improved, newly-designed T/R blades P/N
3G6410A00132 and P/N 4G6410A00132, established life limits for each
improved T/R blade, added repetitive inspections for the improved T/R
blades, and advised that each T/R

blade P/N had its own individual life limit.
     EASA AD 2012-0076, dated May 2, 2012 (EASA AD 2012-0076),
which superseded EASA AD 2012-0030 and was issued after the
manufacturer developed another version of improved T/R blades P/N
3G6410A00133 and P/N 4G6410A00133 with different materials. AD 2012-
0076 required interim life limits for the new improved version of the
T/R blades while also retaining the inspection requirements of EASA AD
2012-0030.
     EASA AD 2012-0076R1, dated July 13, 2012 (EASA AD 2012-
0076R1), which revised EASA AD 2012-0076 after a modification was
developed to allow installation of certain part-numbered T/R blades
under certain conditions.
     EASA AD 2012-0076R2, dated February 20, 2014 (EASA AD
2012-0076R2), which revised EASA AD 2012-0076R1, was issued after
another modification was developed. EASA AD 2012-0076R2 requires
removing the 25 hours TIS inspection of certain part-numbered T/R
blades, extending the life limit of certain part-numbered T/R blades,
retaining the repetitive inspections of certain part-numbered T/R
blades and depending on the inspection results, performing certain
applicable corrections.
    Also, after AD 2011-18-52 was issued, the FAA issued an NPRM (78 FR
54596), which published in the Federal Register on September 5, 2013.
The NPRM proposed to require retaining the inspection requirements for
certain part-numbered blades and expand the applicability to include
the newly designed blades and establish life limits for those blades.
The NPRM also proposed to require replacing any cracked blade or any
blade that has reached its life limit. That NPRM was prompted by
improved modifications of the T/R blades. However, because the FAA
determined that the NPRM does not adequately address the identified
unsafe condition, the NPRM was withdrawn on February 25, 2021 (86 FR
11477).
    Additional review also revealed necessary changes to address the
unsafe condition. This proposed AD clarifies the repetitive inspection
for T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00131 and P/N 4G6410A00131 from, ``visually
inspect the T/R blade for a crack or damage'' to ``visually inspect the
T/R blade for a crack and damage.'' This proposed AD further revises
that repetitive inspection from ``damage that exceeds the limits of the
applicable maintenance manual'' to ``damage that exceeds allowable
limits'' to meet current publishing requirements. This proposed AD
clarifies the inspection area for that repetitive inspection by
proposing to require using a figure in the related service information
instead of using a figure in the body of this AD action. This proposed
AD also revises the requirements by removing unnecessary information,
including the special flight permits paragraph.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an
unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of
the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed AgustaWestland S.p.A Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico
No. 139-265, Revision B, dated February 18, 2014. This service
information specifies a precautionary inspection for a crack, a life
limit for the affected T/R blades, and a quarantine of T/R blades that
have exceeded their life limit. This service information also provides
instructions for mixed usage of the affected T/R blades and sending
certain data to the manufacturer.
    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.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the inspection requirements of AD
2011-18-52 for certain part-numbered T/R blades, expand the
applicability to include the improved T/R blades, require determining
each T/R blade's total hours TIS or landing cycles, and establish life
limits for certain T/R blades. This proposed AD would require removing
from service any T/R blade that has a crack or damage beyond allowable
limits or any T/R blade that has reached its life limit.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and EASA AD

    The EASA AD does not list the T/R blade life limits and instead
references the Airworthiness Limitations Section of 139 AMPI Chapter 4,
while this proposed AD would include the life limits in the AD. The
EASA AD requires reporting information to Product Support Engineering,
whereas this proposed AD would not. The EASA AD requires contacting
AgustaWestland if a crack or damage is found during the inspection,
whereas this proposed AD would require removing the T/R blade from
service.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 130
helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may
incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.
Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Inspecting one T/R blade for a crack would take about 1 work-hour
for an estimated cost of $85 per T/R blade per inspection cycle and up
to $44,200 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.
    Replacing one T/R blade would take about 8 work-hours and parts
would cost about $40,560 for an estimated cost of $41,240 per
replacement.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2011-18-52, Amendment 39-17020 (77
FR 23109, April 18, 2012); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Leonardo S.p.a. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Agusta S.p.A.):
Docket No. FAA-2021-0348; Project Identifier 2018-SW-076-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by June 24, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-18-52, Amendment 39-17020 (77 FR 23109,
April 18, 2012) (AD 2011-18-52).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. (type certificate previously
held by Agusta S.p.A.) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters,
certificated in any category, with tail rotor (T/R) blade, part
number (P/N) 3G6410A00131, 3G6410A00132, 3G6410A00133, 4G6410A00131,
4G6410A00132, or 4G6410A00133, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor
Blades.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a T/R blade.
This condition could result in failure of a T/R blade and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00131 and 4G6410A00131, within 5
hours time-in-service (TIS) after May 3, 2012 (the effective date of
AD 2011-18-52), establish a life limit of 600 hours TIS or 1,500
takeoff and landing cycles (cycles), whichever occurs first, on the
affected T/R blades and update the helicopter's historical records.
If a T/R blade's total number of cycles is unknown, determine the T/
R blade cycles by multiplying the T/R blade's hours TIS by 4.
    (2) For T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00131 and 4G6410A00131, thereafter
following paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, remove any T/R blade from
service before accumulating 600 total hours TIS or 1,500 total
cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00132, 3G6410A00133, 4G6410A00132,
and 4G6410A00133, within 5 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, determine the total number of cycles. If a T/R blade's
total number of cycles is unknown, determine the T/R blade cycles by
multiplying the blade's hours TIS by 4. Before further flight,
remove any T/R blade from service that has accumulated or exceeded
its life limit as follows. Thereafter, remove any T/R blade from
service before accumulating its life limit as follows:
    (i) T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00132 and 4G6410A00132: 1,200 total
hours TIS or 3,200 total cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) T/R blade P/N 3G6410A00133: 40,000 total cycles.
    (iii) T/R blade P/N 4G6410A00133: 4,033 total hours TIS or
40,000 cycles, whichever occurs first.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(3): A combination of T/R blades having
different P/Ns can be installed on the same helicopter. The eligible
combinations of T/R blades P/N are listed in AgustaWestland S.p.A.
Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-265, Revision B, dated February
18, 2014 (BT No. 139-265).

    (4) For T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00131 and P/N 4G6410A00131, within
25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, visually inspect the T/R blade
for a crack and damage that exceeds allowable limits. Inspect in the
area depicted in Figure 1 of BT No. 139-265 using a mirror, a 5X or
higher power magnifying glass, and a flashlight, or borescope. If
there is a crack or damage that exceeds allowable limits, before
further flight, remove the T/R blade from service.
    (5) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any
helicopter any T/R blade P/N 3G6410A00131 or P/N 4G6410A00131,
unless the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1), (2), and (4) of
this AD have been accomplished.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Matt Fuller, AD
Program Manager, Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products
Section, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
2012-0076R2, dated February 20, 2014. You may view the EASA AD on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    Issued on April 30, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-09759 Filed 5-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9586-9587]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04865]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice Regarding U.S. Carrier Authority To Serve Samoa

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises U.S. carriers holding blanket open-skies
route authority that effective July 9, 2019, Samoa will be removed from
the Department of Transportation's list of Open Skies Agreements
Currently Being Applied. This notice invites carriers seeking to
provide scheduled foreign air transportation to Samoa after that date
to file applications for exemption authority.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Kruger, Chief, U.S. Carrier
Licensing/Special Authorities Division<PHONE_NUMBER>, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A number of U.S. carriers hold blanket open-
skies route authority by certificate or exemption, to provide scheduled
foreign air transportation to all of our foreign aviation partners that
have entered into

an open-skies agreement with the United States where that agreement is
being applied. In this regard, the Department's Office of International
Aviation maintains a list on its website of Open Skies Agreements
Currently Being Applied between the United States and its open-skies
partners, and updates the list as partners are added or removed.\1\ The
Department has stated that it will issue a Notice if an open-skies
partner is removed from the list, and allow U.S. carriers holding
blanket open-skies certificate authority 120 days to seek exemption
authority to serve that foreign aviation partner, as the certificate
authority to serve that foreign partner will no longer be effective 120
days after the publication date of the Notice.\2\ The Department has
further stated that it will also publish a notice in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/open-skies-agreements-being-applied.
    \2\ See e.g., Orders 2007-4-2, 2007-7-3, and 2007-7-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 9, 2019, Samoa withdrew as a party to the Multilateral
Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation
(MALIAT), thereby ending its open-skies relationship with the United
States as a multilateral partner.\3\ On March 11, 2019, the Department
issued a Notice stating that it will remove Samoa from its list of Open
Skies Agreements Currently Being Applied, effective July 9, 2019. The
Department served its March 11 Notice on all certificated U.S. air
carriers operating large aircraft; the U.S. Department of State (Office
of Aviation Negotiations); and the Federal Aviation Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The United States was informed through diplomatic channels
that the Government of New Zealand, as depositary for the MALIAT,
received the Government of Samoa's Notification of Withdrawal on
March 9, 2018. Under Article 18 of the MALIAT, Samoa's withdrawal
became effective March 9, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department accordingly invites U.S. carriers to file
applications for exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. 40109, to provide
scheduled foreign air transportation to Samoa on the basis of comity
and reciprocity.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. carriers holding open-skies route authority by
exemption that wish to serve Samoa should similarly file
applications for specific exemption authority.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on March 11, 2019.
Brian J. Hedberg,
Director, Office of International Aviation.
[FR Doc. 2019-04865 Filed 3-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 50950]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2023-0031]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance; Reopening of Comment Period

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that by communication received July
7, 2023, Amtrak requested that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) re-open the period for public comment on Amtrak's request for a
waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad
safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 215 (Railroad Freight Car
Safety Standards), 229 (Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards), 232
(Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger
Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices), and 238 (Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2023-
0031.
    Specifically, Amtrak requests to re-open the comment period
regarding its petition to use virtual reality simulation assessments to
satisfy the ``hands-on'' portion of periodic refresher training to
remain qualified per Sec.  215.11(b), Sec.  229.5, Sec.  232.203(b)(8),
and Sec.  238.109. Amtrak requested that FRA re-open the comment period
for an additional 45 days ``to allow Amtrak more time to address some
of the concerns the labor organizations outline in their comments.''
Previously, FRA had published a notice establishing a comment period
open until July 5, 2023 (88 FR 29176, May 5, 2023).\1\ By this notice,
FRA grants Amtrak's request to re-open the comment period for 45 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2023-0031-0002.
_____________________________________-

    A copy of the communication, the petition, as well as any written
communications concerning the petition, are available for review online
at www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by September 18, 2023 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits
comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-16457 Filed 8-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 92 (Friday, May 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26513-26514]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-2444-037]

Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Request for a temporary amendment of
reservoir elevation requirement.
    b. Project No.: 2444-037.
    c. Date Filed: April 7, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Northern States Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: White River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the White River in Ashland
County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Matthew Miller, 1414 West Hamilton
Avenue, P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Steven Sachs,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2444-037.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant requests a temporary
amendment of its minimum reservoir elevation requirement to allow for
bridge and gate repairs. The applicant states it would initially draw
down the reservoir by approximately 5 feet below the normal pond
elevation to allow for repair of the bridge that crosses the spillway.
The applicant expects this work to be completed approximately 10 weeks
after commencement of the drawdown. Following completion of the bridge
work, the applicant intends to lower the reservoir another 3 feet, or 8
feet below the normal elevation, to allow for work on its spillway
gates which would require an additional 2 weeks before beginning to
refill the reservoir. The applicant expects to return the reservoir to
its normal elevation approximately 14 weeks after the beginning of the
drawdown, but requests the temporary amendment be effective from June 1
through October 31, 2021 to allow for weather and construction
contingencies.
    l. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should

so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit
comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to
intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', or ``PROTEST'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number(s) of the application
to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and
telephone number of the person intervening or protesting; and (4)
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through
385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set
forth their evidentiary basis. A copy of all other filings in reference
to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: May 10, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-10226 Filed 5-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46049-46050]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21242]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0008; FRL-9967-34]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients.
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2017.

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

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA
is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on
these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not
imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

III. New Uses

    1. EPA Registration Number: 352-591. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0397. Applicant: E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (S300/
419), Chestnut Run Plaza, 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, DE 19805. Active
ingredient: Cymoxanil. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed uses: Arugula;
bean, succulent; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B; carrot, roots;
celtuce; florence fennel; garden cress; ginseng; leaf petiole vegetable
subgroup 22B; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach; mango;
upland cress; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10, except tomato; and
vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C. Contact: RD.
    2. EPA Registration Number: 352-604. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0397. Applicant: E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (S300/
419), Chestnut Run Plaza, 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, DE 19805. Active
ingredients: Famoxadone and cymoxanil. Product type: Fungicide.
Proposed use: Arugula; bean, succulent; brassica, leafy greens,
subgroup 4-16B; carrot, roots; celtuce; florence fennel; garden cress;
ginseng; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; leafy greens subgroup 4-
16A, except spinach; mango; upland cress; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-
10, except tomato; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C.
Contact: RD.
    3. EPA Registration Number: 352-605. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0397. Applicant: E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (S300/
419), Chestnut Run Plaza, 974 Centre Road,

Wilmington, DE 19805. Active ingredient: Famoxadone. Product type:
Fungicide. Proposed use: Arugula; bean, succulent; brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B; carrot, roots; celtuce; florence fennel; garden
cress; ginseng; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; leafy greens
subgroup 4-16A, except spinach; mango; upland cress; vegetable,
fruiting, group 8-10, except tomato; and vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C. Contact: RD.
    4. EPA Registration Number: 71512-7. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0224. Applicant: ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road,
Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active ingredient: Flonicamid. Product
type: Insecticide. Proposed uses: New use on Clover & crop group
expansions/conversions to the brassica, leafy greens subgroup 4-16B;
cottonseed subgroup 20C; celtuce; florence fennel; kohlrabi; leaf,
petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except
spinach; and vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16. Contact:
RD.
    5. EPA Registration Number: 71512-9. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0224. Applicant: ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road,
Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active ingredient: Flonicamid. Product
type: Insecticide. Proposed uses: New use on clover & crop group
expansions/conversions to the brassica, leafy greens subgroup 4-16B;
cottonseed subgroup 20C; celtuce; florence fennel; kohlrabi; leaf,
petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except
spinach; and vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16. Contact:
RD.
    6. EPA Registration Number: 71512-10. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0224. Applicant: ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road,
Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active ingredient: Flonicamid. Product
type: Insecticide. Proposed uses: New use on Clover & crop group
expansions/conversions to the brassica, leafy greens subgroup 4-16B;
cottonseed subgroup 20C; celtuce; florence fennel; kohlrabi; leaf,
petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except
spinach; and vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16. Contact:
RD.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 11, 2017.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-21242 Filed 10-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

			OFFICE OF  PREVENTION, PESTICIDES,  AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

DP Barcode:

	Chemical:	Creosote

PC Codes:	022003, 025003, 25004

Case No.:	0139

August 26, 2008

Memorandum:

Subject:	Ecological Risk Assessment for Creosote:  Response to Public
Comments

To:	Jacqueline McFarlane, CRM

	Antimicrobial Division

From: 	William Erickson, Ph.D., Biologist

	RASSB/AD

Thru:	Norm Cook, Branch Chief

	RASSB/AD

RASSB has reviewed the public comments on the Updated Ecological Risk
Assessment for Creosote.  Comments on the ecological risk assessment
were provided by The Creosote Council; Beyond Pesticides; and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region.  The comments and RASSB's response to those comments are
provided below.

Comment (Creosote Council):  EPA needs to make better and more extensive
use of the creosote ecological studies conducted by Dr. Kenneth Brooks.
The work of Dr. Kenneth Brooks established that use of creosote-treated
wood products (e.g., marine piling) in or near water does not pose an
environmental hazard.

RASSB Response:  The studies of Dr. Brooks are evaluated in the risk
assessment including their strengths and limitations.  RASSB disagrees
with the Creosote Council's conclusion that creosote-treated wood
products in or near water do not pose any environmental hazard.  Dr.
Brooks concluded that PAHs accumulating in sediments near aquatic
pilings can pose a risk to aquatic organisms.  He concluded that such
impacts might be limited to within a few meters of a six-piling dolphin
structure in the Sooke Basin of Canada.  However, the footprint of
potential impact could be much more extensive where a larger volume of
aquatic pilings was placed in an aquatic environment.  Elsewhere, Dr.
Brooks (1995) has advocated not installing creosote-treated aquatic
structures in areas where current speeds are less than or equal to 1.0
cm/sec without further assessment.  He stated that an individual project
risk assessment should be required under certain conditions, including
current speed, inter-piling distances, proximity to existing creosote
structures, and other factors.  Clearly, Dr. Brooks recognizes that
creosote leaching from treated aquatic structures poses risk to some
aquatic organisms.  Elsewhere, as discussed in the risk assessment,
creosote has been shown to have a significant and rapid impact on
zooplankton communities (NOEC = 13.9 ppb), and 40-year-old
creosote-treated pilings caused hatching failures and embryonic
abnormalities in Pacific herring.  Based on all available information,
it is misleading to claim that creosote-treated wood placed in the
aquatic environment poses no hazard to aquatic organisms.

Regarding risk to organisms in the water column of the Sooke Basin in
Canada, Dr. Brooks states that water-column concentrations of PAHs are
extremely low and not likely to be of concern for aquatic organisms.
However, as discussed in the risk assessment, water-column
concentrations were not measured until six months after aquatic pilings
were installed.  Microcosm studies (discussed in the risk assessment)
demonstrate that water-column concentrations of PAHs may be sufficiently
high in the first few days or weeks to cause adverse affects (lethal and
sublethal) to aquatic organisms.

RASSB also strongly believes that the uncertainties in extrapolating PAH
concentrations in pristine Canadian waters in winter may not adequately
reflect water-column and sediment concentrations that might occur in
coastal Florida, Mississippi, Texas or other southern U. S. areas with
different biotic and abiotic factors.  Data from these areas would
provide for a more refined risk assessment.  As discussed in the risk
assessment, environmental factors such as salinity, temperature, pH,
organic matter of sediments, water currents, tides, and others have been
shown to influence both leaching of PAHs from treated wood and toxicity
to aquatic organisms.

Comment (Creosote Council):  In 1995 EPA waived all data requirements in
favor of relying upon the public literature.

RASSB Response:  EPA did not waive the data but did state that the
registrant could use available published literature where appropriate.
Although a field study from Canada (Sooke Basin) was subsequently
submitted, no literature or laboratory studies have been submitted to
satisfy the standard ecotoxicity tests required for all pesticides
registered and reregistered under FIFRA.  The data gaps are specified in
the ecological risk assessment.  However, RASSB realizes the difficulty
in conducting standard ecological toxicity tests for creosote, because
it is a mixture of a variety of PAHs with differing toxicities in
differing concentrations that change over time.  RASSB believes that in
lieu of standardized laboratory tests, a field or simulated study might
better address exposure and hazard concerns for aquatic organisms.
RASSB will be working with the Creosote Council to determine appropriate
means of testing.

Comment (Beyond Pesticides):  Emphasize that an endangered species
determination is legally required.

RASSB Response:  The screening-level ecological risk assessment
identifies the taxa (e. g., saltwater invertebrates) at risk, based on
exceedances of the acute and/or chronic levels of concern.  As noted in
the screening assessment, a refined listed-species assessment will be
conducted under Registration Review to assess risk to individual species
in those taxa.  The listed-species assessment will be conducted in
accordance with the OPPTS' overview document.      HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/espp/"  http://www.epa.gov/espp/

Comment (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, SF Bay
Region):  Recent research provides additional information about the
hazards that PAHs in creosote pose to fish. We have enclosed recent
research papers on this topic.

RASSB Response:  The information in these articles may be useful for
further characterizing ecological risks of creosote, but there appears
to be no new information that would change RASSB's risk conclusions at
this time.  The information will be used, as deemed appropriate, when
RASSB conducts a refined listed-species assessment (including listed
salmonids) or conducts any additional ecological risk assessments for
creosote-treated structures.

Comment (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, SF Bay
Region):  Important data needs include sufficient aquatic toxicity data
to calculate acute and chronic risks to benthic organisms and sufficient
aquatic toxicity data to calculate chronic risk to organisms (fish,
invertebrates, plants) inhabiting the water column in both freshwater
and saltwater.

RASSB Response:  RASSB agrees that additional data are needed and
identifies these data gaps in the ecological assessment.  See also
RASSB's response to the Creosote Council regarding the data
requirements.

 USEPA.  2004.  Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in
the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations.  Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Washington, D.C.


From:  Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 5:27 PM To:  <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lowe, Theresa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Johnson, Steffan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:  FW: 0031 sampling for Coke Oven ICR

Eric,

Stef forwarded me your email.

The 2 hour sampling time in the method is assuming a constant process and . Since this process is intermittent, and you may disregard the total sampling time requirement.

Hopefully, this will alleviate your concern with leaving the train assembled and covered overnight.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Ned Shappley

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: August 24, 2016 at 4:40:34 PM EDT To: "Johnson, Steffan"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: 0031 sampling for Coke Oven ICR Stef,

I have a question for you on the Coke Oven ICR and I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction for some clarification.

We are going to be testing on a pushing process next week that pushes for roughly 2 minutes, then is down for around 10 minutes. For a 12 hour shift I believe they are getting about 48 pushes. We are running into difficulty trying to figure out how to sample the 0031 train and collect a good, representative sample within the confines of the method (20 minutes of sample/set of traps, 120 minutes of sample time, etc.)

Do you know if there is or was any discussion about alternative sample procedures for this ICR? Doing one set of samples a day for the 48 pushes is going to be reasonable for us, but I don't think we can get the 120 minutes of sample, which means we then leave the train assembled and covered overnight, which doesn't bode well for our data on the back end I wouldn't think.

Please let me know your thoughts and feel free to pass us on to whoever might help, also feel free to give me a call on my cell at<PHONE_NUMBER> to discuss.

Thanks, Eric

Eric Ehlers <EMAIL_ADDRESS> t:<PHONE_NUMBER> m:<PHONE_NUMBER> f:<PHONE_NUMBER>   888 Industrial Drive Elmhurst IL 60126   www.mostardiplatt.com


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40803-40805]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17635]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83824; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-063]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchange's Pricing at Chapter XV, Section 2 Entitled ``Nasdaq
Options Market--Fees and Rebates''

August 10, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 31, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's pricing at Chapter
XV, Section 2 entitled ``Nasdaq Options Market--Fees and Rebates,''
which governs pricing for Nasdaq Participants using The Nasdaq Options
Market LLC (``NOM''), Nasdaq's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options. The Exchange proposes to amend
an incentive offered today related to its subsidy program, the Market
Access and Routing Subsidy or ``MARS.''
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated the amendments become operative on August 1,
2018.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NOM proposes to amend the Exchange's pricing at Chapter XV, Section
2 entitled ``Nasdaq Options Market--Fees and Rebates.'' Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to amend an incentive in note ``d'' offered to
NOM Participants that qualify for any MARS Payment Tier in Chapter XV,
Section 2(6) related to the MARS subsidy program. MARS pays a subsidy
to NOM Participants that provide certain order routing functionalities
to other NOM Participants and/or use such functionalities
themselves.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Generally, under MARS, the Exchange pays participating NOM
Participants to subsidize their costs of providing routing services
to route orders to NOM. The Exchange believes that the proposed
amendment to MARS will continue to attract higher volumes of
electronic equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange from non-
NOM Participants as well as NOM Participants. The order routing
functionalities permit NOM Participants to provide access and
connectivity to other Participants as well as utilize such access
for themselves. The Exchange notes that one NOM Participant is
eligible for payments under MARS, while another NOM Participant
might potentially be liable for transaction charges associated with
the execution of the order, because those orders were delivered to
the Exchange through a NOM Participant's connection to the Exchange
and that Participant qualified for the MARS Payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background on MARS
    Today, to qualify for MARS, a NOM Participant's routing system
(hereinafter ``System'') is required to meet certain criteria.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically the Participant's System is required to: (1)
Enable the electronic routing of orders to all of the U.S. options
exchanges, including NOM; (2) provide current consolidated market
data from the U.S. options exchanges; and (3) be capable of
interfacing with NOM's API to access current NOM match engine
functionality. The Participant's System would also need to cause NOM
to be one of the top three default destination exchanges for (a)
individually executed marketable orders if NOM is at the national
best bid or offer (``NBBO''), regardless of size or time, or (b)
orders that establish a new NBBO on NOM's Order Book, but allow any
user to manually override NOM as a default destination on an order-
by-order basis. Any NOM Participant is permitted to avail itself of
this arrangement, provided that its order routing functionality
incorporates the features described herein and the Participant
satisfies NOM that it appears to be robust and reliable.
Participants remain solely responsible for implementing and
operating its System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MARS Payments are made to NOM Participants that have System
Eligibility and have routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts
daily in a month (``Average Daily Volume''), which were executed on
NOM.\5\ Today, NOM Participants that have System Eligibility and have
executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts in a month will be
paid the following rebates: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the purpose of qualifying for the MARS Payment, Eligible
Contracts may include Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or
Joint Back Office or ``JBO'' equity option orders that add liquidity
and are electronically delivered and executed. Eligible Contracts do
not include Mini Option orders.
    \6\ The specified MARS Payments are paid on all executed
Eligible Contracts that add liquidity, which are routed to NOM
through a participating NOM Participant's System and meet the
requisite Eligible Contracts ADV. No payments are made with respect
to orders that are routed to NOM, but not executed. Also, a
Participant is not entitled to receive any other revenue from the
Exchange for the use of its System specifically with respect to
orders routed to NOM.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average Daily
                              Tiers                                   Volume       MARS  payment   MARS  payment
                                                                     (``ADV'')        (penny)       (non-penny)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................           2,000           $0.07           $0.15
2...............................................................           5,000            0.09            0.20
3...............................................................          10,000            0.11            0.30
4...............................................................          20,000            0.15            0.50
5...............................................................          45,000            0.17            0.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOM Participants that qualify for Customer \7\ and Professional \8\
Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity Tier 6 will receive an
extra $0.09 per contract rebate in addition to any MARS Payment tier on
MARS Eligible Contracts the NOM Participant qualifies for in a given
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation which is not for the
account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional.'' See Chapter XV.
    \8\ The term ``Professional'' or (``P'') means any 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) pursuant
to Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be
appropriately marked by Participants. See Chapter XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incentive
    Today, the Exchange pays certain Customer and Professional Penny
Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity. These rebates are structured as
a 6 tier rebate program ranging from $0.20 to $0.48 per contract, with
increasing volume requirements for each tier. In addition to the
Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity,
the NOM Participant may also qualify for an additional rebate provided
the NOM Participant qualifies for any MARS Payment Tier for each
transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in that month.
Further, the Exchange pays an additional $0.04 per contract Penny Pilot
Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for each
transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in that month,
in addition to qualifying Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or
Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers 1-6.\9\ Also, today, NOM
Participants that qualify for a note ``c'' incentive receive the
greater of the note ``c'' or note ``d'' incentive.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Chapter XV, Section 2(1), note ``d.''
    \10\ The note ``c'' incentive can be found at Chapter XV,
Section 2(1) and provides additional incentives to NOM Participants
that qualify for the Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or
Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity Tier 6 in addition to meeting
certain criteria specified in note ``c''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend note ``d'' to increase the
additional $0.04 per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or
Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity currently offered to NOM
Participants that qualify for any MARS Payment Tier in addition to
qualifying for Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity
Tier 1 to $0.05 per contract for each transaction which adds liquidity
in Penny Pilot Options in that month. For those NOM Participants that
qualify for Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers
2-6, the Exchange will continue to provide the additional $0.04 per
contract rebate for each transaction that adds liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options in that month, provided the NOM Participant also qualifies for
any MARS Payment Tier.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among Participants and issuers and other persons using
any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to amend note ``d'' in
Chapter XV, Section 2(1) to increase the additional $0.04 per contract
rebate for NOM Participants qualifying for Penny Pilot Options Customer
and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity Tier 1 in addition to
qualifying for any MARS Payment tier to $0.05 per contract for each
transaction that adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options for that month.
The proposed amendment should continue to encourage NOM Participants to
qualify for the Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate
to Add Liquidity Tier 1 in addition to any MARS Payment tier, thereby
executing a greater amount of order flow on NOM to the benefit of all
market participants who may interact with the order flow. Furthermore,
the proposed changes will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with
other options exchanges that offer similar incentives.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule, Section 1(a). MIAX PEARL
offers priority customers and non-priority customers a $0.25 per
contract maker rebate in tier 1 for adding liquidity in penny
classes. See Cboe BZX Options Exchange (``BZX'') Fee Schedule. BZX
offers customers and professionals a base rebate of $0.25 per
contract for adding liquidity in penny pilot options. Under NOM's
proposal, NOM Participants would similarly have the opportunity to
earn up a $0.25 per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or
Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Tier 1 (i.e., the $0.20 per
contract Tier 1 rebate plus the additional $0.05 note ``d''
incentive), provided they meet the requisite qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange's proposal to amend the note ``d'' incentive
as described above is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. All
NOM Participants are eligible to qualify for a MARS Payment, provided
they have System Eligibility, and all NOM Participants may be eligible
for the Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add
Liquidity Tier 1 provided they execute qualifying volume. All NOM
Participants are eligible to qualify for the note ``d'' incentive
provided the requisite requirements are met. The Exchange would
uniformly pay the additional note ``d'' incentive to all qualifying NOM
Participants.

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's proposal to
amend the note ``d'' incentive as described above does not impose an
undue burden on competition. All NOM Participants are eligible to
qualify for a MARS Payment, provided they have System Eligibility, and
all NOM Participants may be eligible for a Penny Pilot Options Customer
and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity provided they execute
qualifying volume. All NOM Participants are eligible to qualify for the
note ``d'' incentive provided the requisite requirements are met. The
Exchange would uniformly pay the additional note ``d'' incentive to all
qualifying NOM Participants. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange's proposal reflects
this competitive environment as it will allow the Exchange remain
competitive with other options exchanges that offer similar incentives,
as discussed above.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See note 13 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-063 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-NASDAQ-2018-063. 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-NASDAQ-2018-063, and should be submitted
on or before September 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17635 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P