[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86400-86404]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27268]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99116; File No. SR-C2-2023-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Its Fees Schedule

December 7, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 1, 2023, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is in
Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule, effective December
1, 2023.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 17 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than approximately 16% of the
market share and currently the Exchange represents approximately 3% of
the market share.\3\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange,
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of option order
flow. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories
of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive
forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market
participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing
levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (November 29, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Code Updates
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend the transaction fee for
Public Customer orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that
remove liquidity. Currently, public customer orders in equity,
multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN penny options classes (except SPY,
AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV) that remove liquidity are assessed a standard
transaction fee of $0.43 per contract and yield fee code ``PC''. The
Exchange proposes to remove orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA,
and XLF from fee code PC and, instead, assess fee code ``SC'' for
Public Customer orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that
remove liquidity. Fee code SC is currently appended to Public Customer
orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and

SLV that remove liquidity and assesses a reduced fee (from that of fee
code PC) of $0.37 per contract.
    The Exchange next proposes to amend the rebate for C2 Market Maker
orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that add liquidity,
including if they are a National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') Joiner or
NBBO Setter. Currently, such C2 Market Makers orders are provided a
rebate of $0.41 per contract and yield fee code ``PM''. Fee code SL is
currently appended to C2 Market Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and
SLV that add liquidity and are a National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'')
Joiner or NBBO Setter and offers a rebate of $0.31 per contract for
such orders. Particularly, to qualify as a NBBO Joiner, a C2 market-
maker order must improve the C2 Best Bid or Offer (``BBO'') and result
in C2 joining an existing NBBO. Only the first order received that
results in C2 BBO joining the NBBO at a new price level will qualify
for the enhanced rebate. If C2 is at the NBBO, the order will not
qualify. Alternatively, C2 Market Makers may receive the enhanced
rebate if they are a NBBO Setter. To qualify as a NBBO Setter and
receive the enhanced rebate, a C2 Market Maker order must set the NBBO.
The Exchange now proposes to add C2 Market Maker orders in AMC, AMD,
AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that add liquidity and are a National
Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') Joiner or NBBO Setter to fee code SL. The
Exchange also proposes to amend the rebate for orders yielding fee code
SL, from $0.31 to $0.32. The Exchange believes assessing fee code SL
and the corresponding enhanced rebate for C2 Market Makers in AMC, AMD,
AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that are NBBO Joiners or Setters will
continue to incentivize liquidity providers to provide more
aggressively priced liquidity in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and
XLF options. Further, the Exchange believes that the increased rebate
for orders yielding fee code SL will also incentivize liquidity
providers to provide more aggressively priced liquidity in SPY, AAPL,
QQQ, IWM and SLV options.
    The Exchange next proposes to amend the rebate for C2 Market Maker
orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that add liquidity.
As noted above, currently, C2 Market Makers orders in equity, multiply-
listed index, ETF and ETN penny options classes (except SPY, AAPL, QQQ,
IWM and SLV) that add liquidity are provided a rebate of $0.41 per
contract and yield fee code ``PM''. The Exchange proposes to remove
orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF from fee code PM
and, instead, assess existing fee code ``SM'' for C2 Market Maker
orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF. Fee code SM is
currently appended to C2 Market Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and
SLV that add liquidity and offer a reduced rebate (from that of fee
code PM) of $0.20 per contract.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the rebate for non-Market
Maker, non-Customer orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF
that add liquidity. Currently, non-Market Maker, non-Customer orders
(i.e., Professional Customer, Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2 Market Maker,
JBO, etc.) in equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN penny options
classes (except SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV) that add liquidity are
provided a rebate of $0.36 per contract and yield fee code ``PN''. The
Exchange proposes to remove orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA,
and XLF from fee code PN and, instead, assess existing fee code ``SN''
on non-Market Maker, non-Customer orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR,
TSLA, and XLF that add liquidity. Fee code SN is currently appended to
such orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV and assesses a reduced
rebate (from that of fee code PN) of $0.20 per contract.
    The Exchange also proposes to add AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA,
and XLF to the table in the Fee Schedule that currently sets forth SPY,
AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV-specific pricing. Like with SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM
and SLV, the Exchange also proposes to clarify that the first
transaction fee table, which does not apply to RUT, DJX, SPY, AAPL,
QQQ, IWM and SLV, also does not apply to AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR,
TSLA, and XLF. The Exchange notes that transaction fees and rebates
that apply to (1) Public Customer orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR,
TSLA, and XLF that add liquidity (existing fee code ``PY'') (2) C2
Market Maker orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that
remove liquidity (existing fee code ``PR''), (3) non-Market Maker, non-
Customer orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that remove
liquidity (existing fee code ``PP), (4) orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG,
PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that trade at the open (existing fee code ``OO'')
and (5) resting orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that
trade with resting complex orders (existing fee code ``CA'') are not
changing, nor are the associated fee codes.
Market Maker Volume Tiers
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Footnote 1 (Market Maker Volume
Tiers), applicable to qualifying C2 Market Maker orders yielding fee
code SM. Pursuant to Footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange
currently offers two Market Maker Volume Tiers, which provide enhanced
rebates between $0.26 and $0.30 per contract for qualifying Market
Maker orders yielding fee code SM where a TPHTPH [sic] meets required
criteria. Specifically, Tier 1 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.26 per
contract where a TPH: (1) has an ADAV \4\ in Market-Maker orders in
SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV (i.e., yielding fee codes SM or SL) greater
than or equal to 50,000 contracts; or (2) has a Step-Up ADAV \5\ in
Market-Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV (i.e., yielding fee
codes SM or SL) greater than or equal to 15,000 contracts from March
2021. Tier 2 provides a higher rebate of $0.30 per contract where a TPH
meets the more stringent criteria of having an ADAV in Market-Maker
orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV (i.e., yielding fee codes SM or
SL) greater than or equal to 130,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of contracts added, per day.
    \5\ ``Step-Up ADAV'' means ADAV in the relevant baseline month
subtracted from current ADAV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the required criteria for Tiers 1
and 2. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Tier 1 criteria to
state that a TPHTPH [sic] must have (1) an ADAV in Market-Maker orders
in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM, SLV, AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF
(i.e., yielding fee codes SM or SL) greater than or equal to 0.15% of
Average OCV.\6\ The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 2 criteria to state
that a TPHTPH [sic] must have an ADAV in Market-Maker orders in SPY,
AAPL, QQQ, IWM, SLV, AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF (i.e.,
yielding fee codes SM or SL) greater than or equal to 0.35% of Average
OCV. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to change the enhanced rebate
for Tier 2 from $0.30 per contract to $0.28 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``OCV'' means, the total equity and ETF options volume that
clears in the Customer range at the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') for the month for which the fees apply, excluding volume
on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System
Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add new Market Maker Volume Tier 3 to
provide a rebate of $0.31 per contract if a TPH has an ADAV in Market-
Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM, SLV,

AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF (i.e., yielding fee codes SM
or SL) greater than or equal to 0.60% of Average OCV. Finally, the
Exchange propose to add new Market Maker Volume Tier 4 to provide an
enhanced rebate of $0.32 per contract if a TPH has an ADAV in Market-
Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM, SLV, AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR,
TSLA, and XLF (i.e., yielding fee codes SM or SL) greater than or equal
to 0.70% of Average OCV.
    The Exchange notes that other exchanges offer tiered product-
specific pricing incentives.\7\ The proposed changes are designed to
encourage Market-Makers to increase or grow their order flow on the
Exchange in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF, which facilitates
tighter spreads, signaling increased activity from other market
participants, and thus ultimately contributes to deeper and more liquid
markets and provides greater execution opportunities on the Exchange to
the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., MIAX Pearl Fee Schedule, Section 1 Transaction
Rebates/Fees, which provides for product-specific pricing for SPY,
QQQ, and IWM; and Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Footnote
5, which provides for tiered rebates for market maker IWM and QCC
orders that add liquidity between $0.10 and $0.26 per contract, as
well as tired rebates for market maker orders in similar, single-
name options (AMZN, FB, and NVDA) between $0.15 and $0.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its TPHs and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. In particular, the proposed
changes to Exchange execution fees and rebates for certain orders in
AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF are intended to attract order
flow to the Exchange by continuing to offer competitive pricing while
also creating additional incentives to providing aggressively priced
displayed liquidity, which the Exchange believes would enhance market
quality to the benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange believes its proposed changes are reasonable as they
are competitive and in line with the Exchange's current pricing for the
same orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM, and SLV. The Exchange believes that
it is reasonable to reduce the transaction fee for Public Customer
orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that remove
liquidity because market participants will be subject to lower fees for
such orders and thus may be encouraged to increase retail AMC, AMD,
AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable to reduce the rebates for both C2 Market
Maker and non-Market Maker, non-Customer orders in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG,
PLTR, TSLA, and XLF that add liquidity because such market participants
will still receive rebates for such orders, albeit at a lower amount,
which are already in place for such orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and
SLV. Additionally, Market Makers that are NBBO Joiners or Setters in
AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF would be eligible to receive
the same rebate, as amended, that is currently offered for joining or
setting an NBBO in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV. The Exchange believes
that offering the NBBO Joiner and Setter rebate for Market Maker orders
in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF is reasonable as it is
designed to continue to incentivize C2 Market Makers to improve the C2
BBO resulting in C2 joining an existing NBBO or setting a new NBBO to
receive the rebate, ultimately encouraging C2 Market Makers to submit
more aggressive AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF orders that
will maintain tight spreads, benefitting both TPHs and public
investors. Further, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase
the current rebate for the NBBO Joiner and Setter rebate for Market
Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV, as such market
participants will still receive a rebate for such orders.
    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to adopt pricing specific to certain orders in
AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF as the Exchange already
maintains the same pricing for such orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and
SLV, as well as similar product-specific pricing for certain orders in
other products, such as RUT and DJX.\12\ Additionally, as noted above,
other exchanges similarly provide for product-specific pricing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Transaction
Fees.
    \13\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess a lower fee for Public Customer orders in AMC,
AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF as compared to other market
participants because customer order flow enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically,
customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. Moreover, the options industry has
a long history of providing preferential pricing to customers, and the
Exchange's current Fee Schedule currently does so in many places, as do
the fees structures of multiple other exchanges.\14\ The Exchange notes
that the proposed fee change will be applied equally to all Public
Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Transaction
Fees; see also BZX Options Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to provide C2 Market-Makers that are NBBO Joiners or
Setters in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF an enhanced rebate
(compared to the proposed rebate for other C2 Market-Makers) because
such market participants are providing more

aggressively priced liquidity in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and
XLF options. Additionally, increased add volume order flow,
particularly by liquidity providers, contributes to a deeper, more
liquid market, which, in turn, provides for increased execution
opportunities and thus overall enhanced price discovery and price
improvement opportunities on the Exchange. As such, this benefits all
market participants by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced
market ecosystem, offering additional flexibility for all investors to
enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. The
Exchange believes the proposed changes to the rebates for non-Market
Maker, non-Customer and C2 Market Maker AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR,
TSLA, and XLF orders are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they will be applied equally to all non-market-makers, non-
customers and Market-Makers, respectively.
    The Exchange believes amending Market Maker Volume Tiers for C2
Market Maker orders yielding fee code SM or SL is reasonable because
they provide additional opportunities for TPHs to receive enhanced
rebates on qualifying orders in a manner that incentivizes increased
Market Maker order flow in certain multiply-listed options on the
Exchange. The Exchange believes the Market Maker Volume Tiers, as
amended, are reasonable means to encourage Market Makers to increase
their order flow to specific multiply-listed options on the Exchange
(i.e., SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM, SLV, AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and
XLF). The Exchange notes that increased Market Maker activity,
particularly, facilitates tighter spreads and an increase in overall
liquidity provider activity, both of which signal additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants,
contributing towards a robust, well-balanced market ecosystem,
particularly in multiply-listed options on the Exchange. The Exchange
also believes that the amended enhanced rebate offered under Tier 2 and
the proposed enhanced rebates offered under proposed Tiers 3 and 4 are
reasonably based on the difficulty of satisfying the proposed tiers'
criteria and ensures the proposed rebate and thresholds appropriately
reflect the incremental difficulty in achieving the Market-Maker Volume
Tier. The Exchange believes that the proposed enhanced rebates are also
in line with the enhanced rebates currently offered by another exchange
for similar products.\15\ The Exchange also believes it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to adopt pricing specific to
certain orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM, SLV, AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR,
TSLA, and XLF as the Exchange already offers product-specific pricing
for these orders and, and as noted above, other exchanges similarly
provide for product-specific tiered pricing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 8.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the Market Maker Volume Tiers, as
amended, represent an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Market Makers, in
that all Market Makers have the opportunity to compete for and achieve
the proposed tiers. The enhanced rebates will apply automatically and
uniformly to all Market Makers that achieve the proposed corresponding
criteria. While the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would definitively result in any particular Market
Maker qualifying for the proposed tiers, the Exchange believes that
approximately two Market Makers will reasonably be able to achieve the
amended criteria in Tier 1; approximately five Market Makers will be
able to achieve the amended criteria in Tier 2; approximately two
Market Makers will be able to achieve the criteria in proposed Tier 3;
and approximately one Market Maker will be able to achieve the criteria
in proposed Tier 4. The Exchange notes, however, that the tiers are
open to any Market Maker that satisfies the tiers' criteria.
    The Exchange lastly notes that it does not believe the tiers, as
amended, will adversely impact any TPH's pricing. Rather, should a TPH
not meet the proposed criteria, the TPH will merely not receive the
enhanced rebates corresponding to the tiers, and will instead receive
the standard rebate.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above,
the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will encourage the
submission of additional liquidity in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA,
and XLF to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all TPHs. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient
pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and
small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change applies to all similarly situated TPHs equally. The proposed
change to reduce the transaction fee for Public Customer orders in AMC,
AMD, AMXN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF is designed to attract additional
AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR, TSLA, and XLF Public Customer orders that
remove liquidity. As noted above, the changes to the rebates for non-
Market Maker, non-Customer and C2 Market Maker AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG,
PLTR, TSLA, and XLF orders will be applied equally to all non-market-
makers, non-customers and Market Makers, respectively. Further, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change to increase the C2 Market
Maker rebate for orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, and IWM and provide C2
Market-Makers that are NBBO Joiners or Setters in AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG,
PLTR, TSLA, and XLF an enhanced rebate (compared to the proposed rebate
for other C2 Market-Makers) will incentivize entry on the Exchange of
more aggressive SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM, SLV, AMC, AMD, AMZN, HYG, PLTR,
TSLA, and XLF orders that will maintain tight spreads, benefitting both
TPHs and public investors criteria and, as a result, provide for deeper
levels of liquidity, increasing trading opportunities for other market
participants, thus signaling further trading activity, ultimately
incentivizing more overall order flow and improving price transparency
on the Exchange. Finally, as noted above, the changes to the Market
Maker Volume Tiers apply uniformly to all Market Makers, in that all
Market Makers have the opportunity to compete for and achieve the
proposed tiers; the enhanced rebates will apply automatically and
uniformly to all Market Makers that achieve the proposed corresponding
criteria.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. TPHs
have numerous alternative venues

that they may participate on and director their order flow, including
16 other options exchanges and off-exchange venues. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 16% of the market share.\17\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow.
Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their orders to other
exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other
venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted
the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues
and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' The fact that this market is competitive has also long
been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \19\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-C2-2023-024 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-C2-2023-024. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-C2-2023-024 and should be
submitted on or before January 3, 2024.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27268 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52434-52437]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0602; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01211-A;
Amendment 39-22143; AD 2022-17-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002-14-
28, which applied to all de Havilland Inc. (type certificate currently
held by Viking Air Limited) Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2
Mk. III airplanes. AD 2002-14-28 established a life limit for the front
fuselage struts and required repetitively replacing the front fuselage
struts every 15 years or repetitively inspecting the struts for
corrosion or fatigue damage and replacing when the damage exceeded a
certain level. Since the FAA issued AD 2002-14-28, Transport Canada
superseded its mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) to
correct this unsafe condition on these products. This AD requires
either doing recurring visual inspections, borescope inspections, and
non-destructive inspections (NDIs) of the struts and airframe lugs with
corrective action as necessary or replacing the struts every 15 years
and doing recurring NDIs of the airframe lugs with corrective action as
necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 30, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
30, 2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 de Havilland Way,
Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(250) 656-0673; email: [email protected]; website:
www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available at www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-
0602.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA-2022-0602; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the MCAI, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aviation Safety Engineer,
New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2002-14-28, Amendment 39-12828 (67 FR
47684, July 22, 2002) (AD 2002-14-28). AD 2002-14-28 applied to all de
Havilland Inc. (type certificate currently held by Viking Air Limited)
Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes. AD 2002-
14-28 established a life limit for the front fuselage struts and
required repetitively replacing the front fuselage struts every 15
years or repetitively inspecting the struts for corrosion or fatigue
damage and replacing when the damage exceeded a certain level. The FAA
issued AD 2002-14-28 to prevent structural failure of the front
fuselage caused by corrosion or fatigue damage to the struts that
develops over time, which could result in reduced or loss of airplane
control.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2022 (87 FR
34591). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2020-22, dated June 5, 2020
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), issued by Transport Canada,
which is the aviation authority for Canada, which superseded its prior
AD on this unsafe condition, AD CF-98-37R1, dated August 20, 1999.
Transport Canada issued the MCAI to introduce a revised inspection
schedule for the front fuselage struts from previously published
schedules to alleviate the burden of mandatory replacement every 15
years or ultrasonic inspections every 5 years. The MCAI states:

    Operators have reported incidents of corrosion of the DHC-2
front fuselage struts which are installed on each side of the flight
compartment windshield. Deterioration of the airframe lugs to which
the struts are attached has also been reported. The actions
specified by this [Transport Canada] AD are intended to prevent
structural failure of the front fuselage caused by damage to the
fuselage struts and airframe lugs that develops over time, which
could result in the loss of airframe structural integrity.
    AD CF-98-37 issued 29 September 1998 mandated a 15-year life
limit on the strut. It also prohibited installation of part numbers
(P/Ns) C2FS209 and C2FS210.
    Revision 1, CF-98-37R1, introduced repetitive inspection as an
alternative to replacement of the strut. Detailed visual inspection
was required to begin within 12 months from the effective date of
the [Transport Canada] AD and be repeated every 12 months regardless
of the age of the strut. Ultrasonic thickness measurements were
required to begin within 24 months from the effective date of the
[Transport Canada] AD and be repeated every 5 years regardless of
the age of the strut.
    After AD CF-98-37R1 was issued, it was determined that the
repetitive inspections are not required to be started until the
strut has accumulated 15 years since installation. As a result,
Transport Canada (TC) approved several AMOCs [alternative methods of
compliance] to authorize starting the inspections at that time.
    Since the issuance of AD CF-98-37R1, TC has received several
Service Difficulty Reports (SDRs) indicating that the corrective
actions of that [Transport Canada] AD have not been effective at
controlling damage of the fuselage struts to an acceptable level.
    Viking Air Ltd. (Viking) has determined that a modified program
of recurring visual inspection, borescope inspection and non-
destructive inspection (NDI) of the struts and airframe lugs would
be more effective than the existing inspection program. This program
modifies affected parts by introducing a hole to permit a borescope
inspection if that hole does not already exist in the parts.
    To implement the modified inspection program, Viking has
published Service Bulletin (SB) V2/0010 and Technical Bulletin (TB)
V2/00002 that provide specific instructions for performing the
modification, inspections and measurements required by this
[Transport Canada] AD. The SB and TB also define the follow-on
actions associated with those inspections and measurements.
    Viking has also developed a version of the front fuselage strut
with improved resistance to corrosion and with provisions for
borescope inspection. The improved struts have been assigned P/Ns
C2FS3281A-9 (left strut) and C2FS3282A-9 (right strut).
    The corrective actions of this [Transport Canada] AD differ from
those of AD CF-98-37R1 in the following ways:
     AD CF-98-37R1 included the details for all of the
corrective actions, it did not require reference to other documents.
For this [Transport Canada] AD, the details of the corrective
actions are now specified in a SB and a TB.

     AD CF-98-37R1 required repetitive detailed visual
inspection (DVI) of the airframe lugs. This [Transport Canada] AD
requires repetitive DVI and NDI of the airframe lugs.
     AD CF-98-37R1 only permitted installation of P/Ns
C2FS3281A and C2FS3282A. This [Transport Canada] AD permits
installation of those parts, the superseding Viking P/Ns, parts
installed by TC-issued or -accepted Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) or Part Manufacturing Approval (PMA) and Part Design Approval
(PDA) parts that are approved for installation in DHC-2 as
replacements for P/Ns C2FS3281A and C2FS3282A. Those are all
approved parts.
     AD CF-98-37R1 did not specify to remove parts from the
aeroplane to perform inspections. This [Transport Canada] AD
requires repetitive removal of the struts from the aeroplane
followed by a NDI of the airframe lugs. This requirement applies to
DHC-2 where the struts are being replaced when they reach 15 years
since installation. It also applies to DHC-2 where the struts are
kept in service and inspected as required by the SB and TB.
     AD CF-98-37R1 required the visual inspection to start
within 12 months from the [Transport Canada] AD effective date and
the NDI to start within 24 months from the [Transport Canada] AD
effective date. This [Transport Canada] AD requires the repetitive
inspections to start no later than when the struts have accumulated
15 years since initial installation.
     AD CF-98-37R1 required repetitive ultrasonic thickness
measurement for all parts. This [Transport Canada] AD only requires
that measurement if corrosion is detected during an inspection.
     AD CF-98-37R1 required visual inspection of the
exterior surfaces of the strut with the strut installed in the
aeroplane. For struts that have accumulated more than 15 years since
first installation, this [Transport Canada] AD continues to require
visual inspection of the accessible exterior surfaces of the strut
with the strut installed. This [Transport Canada] AD also includes
repetitive requirements for:
    [cir] Inspection of the fillet sealant;
    [cir] Borescope inspection of the interior of the strut; and
    [cir] Removal of the strut from the aeroplane followed by visual
inspection of the entire strut and NDI of the strut end fittings.
    All TC-issued or -accepted AMOCs with AD CF-98-37R1 are
cancelled on the effective date of this [Transport Canada] AD. Parts
in service must be replaced or modified, inspected and maintained in
accordance with the requirements of this [Transport Canada] AD
unless TC approves AMOCs with the requirements of this [Transport
Canada] AD.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2022-0602.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require either doing recurring
visual inspections, borescope inspections, and NDIs of the struts and
airframe lugs with corrective action as necessary or replacing the
struts every 15 years and doing recurring NDIs of the airframe lugs
with corrective action as necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and
determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Viking DHC-2 Beaver Technical Bulletin No. V2/
00002, Revision `A,' dated June 20, 2019. The service information
specifies procedures for a detailed visual, borescope, and non-
destructive testing (NDT) inspection of the front fuselage struts and
airframe lugs.
    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.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin No. V2/0010,
Revision `NC,' dated April 3, 2020. The service information contains a
detailed and revised schedule for a detailed visual inspection of the
forward-lower and aft-upper strut attachment points on the fuselage
(mating airframe lugs) every 12 months, borescope inspection of the
strut interior surfaces every 5 years, NDT inspection of the fuselage
strut fork ends and lugs every 15 years, replacement of each fuselage
strut every 15 years, and replacement of the 5-year ultrasonic
thickness measurement as an option to the 15-year life limit.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 143 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
            Action                   Labor cost              Parts cost             airplane        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual, borescope, and NDT     80 work-hours x $85    Not applicable..........  $6,800 per       $972,400 per
 inspections of the front       per hour = $6,800                                inspection       inspection
 fuselage struts and airframe   per inspection cycle.                            cycle.           cycle.
 lugs.
Detailed visual inspection...  4 work-hours x $85     Not applicable..........  $340 per         $48,620 per
                                per hour = $340 per                              inspection       inspection
                                inspection cycle.                                cycle.           cycle.
Borescope and detailed visual  6 work-hours x $85     Not applicable..........  $510 per         $72,930 per
 inspection.                    per hour = $510 per                              inspection       inspection
                                inspection cycle.                                cycle.           cycle.
Replace left-hand fuselage     54 work-hours x $85    $2,331.40...............  $6,921.40......  $989,760.20.
 strut.                         per hour = $4,590.
Replace right-hand fuselage    54 work-hours x $85    $2,331.40...............  $6,921.40......  $989,760.20.
 strut.                         per hour = $4,590.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The extent of damage found during the required inspections could
vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of
determining how much damage may be found on each airplane, the cost to
repair damaged parts on each airplane, or the number of airplanes that
may require repair.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2002-14-28, Amendment 39-12828 (67
FR 47684, July 22, 2002); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2022-17-05 Viking Air Limited (type certificate previously held by
Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.): Amendment 39-22143; Docket
No. FAA-2022-0602; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01211-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 30,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2002-14-28, Amendment 39-12828 (67 FR 47684,
July 22, 2002) (AD 2002-14-28).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.) Model DHC-
2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial
numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5300, Fuselage
Structure (General).

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as the development
of damage to the front fuselage struts and airframe lugs over time.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the front
fuselage struts, which could lead to failure of the airframe and
loss of airplane control.

(f) Definition of Serviceable Part

    For purposes of this AD, a ``serviceable part'' is a front
fuselage strut that has a part number (P/N) other than P/N C2FS209
and C2FS210 and meets the conditions in either paragraph (f)(1) or
(2) of this AD:
    (1) Has accumulated less than 15 years since first installation
on an airplane; or
    (2) Has accumulated 15 or more years since first installation on
an airplane and has been inspected in accordance with the
requirements of this AD.

(g) Compliance

    Comply with the initial actions in paragraph (h) of this AD at
the applicable compliance time in paragraph (g)(1), (2), or (3) of
this AD, unless already done.
    (1) For airplanes with a front fuselage strut that has been
installed for less than 15 years as of the effective date of this
AD: Before each front fuselage strut accumulates 15 years since
first installation on an airplane.
    (2) For airplanes with a front fuselage strut that has been
installed for more than 15 years as of the effective date of this AD
or with a front fuselage strut where the date of first installation
on an airplane is unknown and the ultrasonic inspection required by
paragraph (d)(2) of AD 2002-14-28 has not been done within the last
5 years: Before further flight.
    (3) For airplanes with a front fuselage strut that has been
installed for more than 15 years as of the effective date of this AD
or with a front fuselage strut where the date of first installation
on an airplane is unknown and the ultrasonic inspection required by
paragraph (d)(2) of AD 2002-14-28 has been done within the last 5
years: Within 5 years from the date of the last ultrasonic
inspection done in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of AD 2002-14-
28.

(h) Initial Actions

    (1) Do the actions in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD:
    (i) Remove the front fuselage struts from service and install
and seal serviceable parts in accordance with steps w. and y.
through ii. of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your
airplane, of Viking DHC-2 Beaver Technical Bulletin No. V2/00002,
Revision A, dated June 20, 2019 (Viking TB V2/00002); or
    (ii) Do visual and borescope inspections of the front fuselage
struts and non-destructive testing (NDT) inspections of the fuselage
strut fork ends for corrosion and cracks in accordance with steps m.
through p. of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your
airplane, of Viking TB V2/00002, except you are not required to
contact the manufacturer. Instead, do the actions in paragraph
(h)(3) of this AD.
    (2) Do visual and NDT inspections of the mating airframe lug
surfaces and bolt holes for corrosion and cracks and replace if
necessary in accordance with steps q., r., t., and u. of Section
II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your airplane, of Viking TB V2/
00002, except you are not required to contact the manufacturer.
    (3) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1)(ii)
of this AD, any crack or corrosion is found, before further flight,
do one of the following:
    (i) Remove the part from service and install and seal a
serviceable part in accordance with steps w. and y. through ii. of
Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as applicable to your airplane, of
Viking TB V2/00002; or
    (ii) If the wall thickness of the part is 0.030 inch or more,
repair in accordance with step s.(2) of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2.,
as applicable to your airplane, of Viking TB V2/00002; or
    (iii) Repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York
ACO Branch, FAA; Transport Canada; or Viking Air Limited's Transport
Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA,
the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Repetitive Actions

    (1) After completing the actions in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and
(2) of this AD, unless already done, do the following:
    (i) At intervals not to exceed 12 months, except when complying
with paragraph (i)(1)(ii) or (2) of this AD, clean and visually
inspect the front fuselage struts and airframe lugs for corrosion
and cracking in accordance with steps n., p., and q. of Section
II.B.1. or

II.B.2., as applicable to your airplane, of Viking TB V2/00002. If
there is a crack or any corrosion, before further flight, comply
with the actions in paragraph (h)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this AD.
    (ii) At intervals not to exceed 5 years, except when complying
with paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, do visual and borescope
inspections of the front fuselage struts and a visual inspection of
the airframe lugs for corrosion and cracking in accordance with
steps m. through q. and t. of Section II.B.1. or II.B.2., as
applicable to your airplane, of Viking TB V2/00002, except you are
not required to contact the manufacturer. If there is a crack or any
corrosion, before further flight, comply with the actions in
paragraph (h)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this AD.
    (2) At intervals not to exceed 15 years, repeat the actions
required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aviation Safety Engineer, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2020-22, dated June 5, 2020,
for more information. You may examine the Transport Canada AD in the
AD docket at www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2022-0602.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Viking DHC-2 Beaver Technical Bulletin No. V2/00002,
Revision `A,' dated June 20, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Viking Air Ltd service information identified in this
AD, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 de Havilland
Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-
8444; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
website: www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 4, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18383 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8773-8774]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04285]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85248; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2019-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Fee Schedule of the Exchange

March 5, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 21, 2019, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'' 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 fee schedule of the Exchange
(``Fee Schedule'') to eliminate fees and rebates related to the Sub-
second Non-displayed Auction Process (``SNAP'') and the outbound
routing service. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to eliminate all
fees and rebates related to SNAP and the outbound routing service,
which were both decommissioned on December 31, 2018.\4\ Specifically,
the Exchange proposes the following amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 84852 (December 19, 2018), 83
FR 66808 (December 27, 2018) (SR-CHX-2018-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section E.6 (Routing Services Fees). Current Section E.6
provides fees for away executions resulting from orders routed away
from the Exchange pursuant to the outbound routing service. Given that
the outbound routing service has been decommissioned, the Exchange
proposes to replace all text under Section E.6 with the term
``Reserved.''
     Section E.8(c) (Order Cancellation Fee Exemption). Section
E.8 provides the Order Cancellation Fee, which is assessed to
Participants \5\ per trading account symbol. Paragraph (c) provides an
exemption to the Order Cancellation Fee if a trading account symbol
meets a minimum threshold of executions resulting from single-sided
orders submitted to the Matching System \6\ (``eligible executions'').
When the outbound routing service was operational, eligible executions
included executions within the Matching System and at away markets (for
orders that were routed away pursuant to the outbound routing
service).\7\ However, given that the outbound routing service has been
decommissioned, eligible executions now only include executions within
the Matching System. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the
definition of eligible executions to omit references to the Routing
Services and a repetitive reference to executions within the Matching
System. Therefore, amended paragraph (c) would provide

that eligible executions shall only include executions resulting from
single-sided orders submitted to the Matching System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Article 1, Rule 1(z) of the rules of the Exchange
defining ``Participant.''
    \6\ The Matching System is a ``Trading Facility'' of the
Exchange as defined under Article 1, Rule 1(z) of the rules of the
Exchange.
    \7\ Only routable orders submitted to the Matching System were
eligible to be routed away pursuant to the outbound routing service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section E.9 (SNAP Execution Fees). Current Section E.9
provides the fees for certain executions that resulted from SNAP
auctions. Given that SNAP has been decommissioned, the Exchange
proposes to delete Section E.9 in its entirety.
     Section Q (SNAP Incentive Program). Current Section Q
provides the SNAP Incentive Program, which provided certain rebates to
Participants that initiated SNAP auctions. Given that SNAP has been
decommissioned, the Exchange proposes to delete Section Q in its
entirety.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that is
designed to ensure that the Exchange is so organized and has the
capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to
comply, and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members, with the provisions of this chapter, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. Specifically,
since the proposed rule change eliminates obsolete fees and rebates,
the proposed rule change would clarify and streamline the Fee Schedule
and therefore enhance the ability of the Exchange to enforce compliance
by its members and persons associated with its members with the rules
of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. Specifically, since the elimination of the obsolete fees
and rebates would apply to all members of the Exchange and the proposed
rule change does not modify any other fees and rebates that have
already been approved by the Commission, the proposed rule change
ensures the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Given that the proposed rule
change deletes fees and rebates for functionality that has been
decommissioned, the proposed rule change does not raise any competitive
issues.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \11\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \12\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-01 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-NYSECHX-2019-01. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet 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-NYSECHX-2019-01 and should be submitted
on or before April 1, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04285 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18810-18812]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7449]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0282; FRL-9342-1]

Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and
Comment and Other Docket Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has established registration review dockets for the
pesticides listed in the table in Unit III.A. With this document, EPA
is opening the public comment period for these registration reviews.
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information
that will assist the public in understanding the types of information
and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of
registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
This document also announces the Agency's intent not to open a
registration review docket for dicofol, molinate, or bromonitrostyrene.
Bromonitrostyrene and molinate do not currently have any actively
registered pesticide products and are not, therefore, scheduled for
review under the registration review program. Dicofol is undergoing a
phase-out of all U.S. pesticide registrations. The cancellations of the
end use registrations are effective October 31, 2013. Therefore,
dicofol is not scheduled for review under the registration review
program. EPA is also announcing the availability of an amended final
work plan for the registration review of the pesticide tribenuron
methyl; this work plan has been amended to incorporate revisions to the
data requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the
table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID numbers listed
in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticides you are commenting on.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or email. The
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: The Chemical Review Manager identified in the table in Unit
III.A. for the pesticide of interest.
    For general information contact: Kevin Costello, Pesticide Re-
evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health,

farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. Authority

    EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this
document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations
for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of
FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of
pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide
product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the
statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5).
When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized
practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function
without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is,
without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human
dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in
or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they
continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, they
can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the
Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review
case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present,
EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in
the following table.

                                   Table--Registration Review Dockets Opening
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical Review Manager,
   Registration review case name and                 Docket ID number                 telephone number, email
                 number                                                                       address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cypermethrin, 2130.....................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0167...................  Dana Friedman,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cymoxanil, 7023........................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0148...................  Moana Appleyard, (703) 308-
                                                                                8175,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Halosulfuron-methyl, 7233..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0745...................  Kaitlin Keller, (703) 308-
                                                                                8172<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Primisulfuron-methyl, 7220.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0844...................  Christina Scheltema, (703) 308-
                                                                                2201,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Triasulfuron, 7221.....................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0115...................  Andrea Mojica,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Acetaminophen, 7610....................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0145...................  Bonnie Adler,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chlorothalonil, 0097...................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0840...................  Jose Gayoso,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rebecca
                                                                                von dem Hagen,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cyprodinil, 7025.......................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1008...................  Wilhelmena Livingston, (703)
                                                                                308-8025,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                                .
Nitrapyrin, 0213.......................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0170...................  Kelly Ballard,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Mepiquat and mepiquat chloride, 2375...  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0083...................  Carissa Cyran,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Methyloxazolidines, 3095...............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0007...................  Seiichi Murasaki, 703-347-
                                                                                0163,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Perboric acid, (HBO(O2), sodium salt,    EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0006...................  Seiichi Murasaki, 703-347-
 monohydrate, 5007.                                                                0163,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Na & Ca Hypochlorite, 0029.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0004...................  Wanda Henson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Pine oils, 3113........................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0005...................  Rebecca von dem Hagen, 703-305-
                                                                                6785<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SCLPs (Straight Chain Lepidopteran       EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0127...................  Colin Walsh,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
 Pheromones), 8200<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Methyl Nonyl Ketone, 3094..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0125...................  Gina Burnett,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nuranone Japanese Beetle Attractant,     EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0126...................  Colin Walsh,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
 4113<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also announcing that it will not be opening a docket for
dicofol, molinate, or bromonitrostyrene. Bromonitrostyrene and molinate
do not currently have any products actively registered under FIFRA
section 3. Dicofol is undergoing a phase-out of all U.S. pesticide
registrations. The cancellations of the end use registrations are
effective October 31, 2013. Therefore, dicofol is not scheduled for
review under the registration review program. The Agency will take
separate actions to cancel any remaining FIFRA section 24(c) Special
Local Needs registrations with these active ingredients and to propose
revocation of any affected tolerances that are not supported for import
purposes only.
    EPA is also announcing the availability of an amended final work
plan for the registration review of the pesticide tribenuron methyl
(docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0626). This final work plan has been amended to
incorporate changes to the data requirements for registration review.

B. Docket Content

    1. Review dockets. The registration review dockets contain
information that the Agency may consider in the course of the
registration review. The Agency may include information from its files
including, but not limited to, the following information:
     An overview of the registration review case status.
     A list of current product registrations and registrants.
     Federal Register notices regarding any pending
registration actions.
     Federal Register notices regarding current or pending
tolerances.
     Risk assessments.
     Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
     Summaries of incident data.
     Any other pertinent data or information.
    Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency
currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan
for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide
more detailed information. During this public comment period, the
Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional
information they believe the Agency should consider during the
registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each
docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though
comment in any area is welcome.
    2. Other related information. More information on these cases,
including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the
registration review schedule on the Agency's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm. Information on
the Agency's registration review program and its implementing
regulation may be seen at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.
    3. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 22, 2012.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-7449 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P