[Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3909-3910]
[DOCID:fr24ja06-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53111; File No. SR-NASD-2006-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Related to Non-NASD Member
Broker-Dealer Access to Nasdaq's Brut Facility

January 12, 2006.
    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 January 3, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. On January 12,
2006, Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\
Nasdaq has filed the proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 made technical changes to the proposed rule
change.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to continue to provide, through February 8, 2006,
broker-dealers that are not members of the NASD access to Nasdaq's Brut
facility. Nasdaq states that it would implement the proposed rule
change, as amended, immediately. Nasdaq has designated this proposal as
non-controversial and has requested that the Commission waive the five-
day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day pre-operative waiting period
contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is below.
Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in
[brackets].
* * * * *

4901. Definitions

    (a) through (h) No Change.
    (i) The term ``Participant'' shall mean an NASD member that
fulfills the obligations contained in Rule 4902 regarding participation
in the System. Until [December 31, 2005,] February 8, 2006, the term
``Participant'' shall also include non-NASD [members] broker/dealers
that desire to use the System and otherwise meet all other requirements
for System participation.
    (j) through (w) No Change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as
amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change, as amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq 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
    Under current NASD Rule 4901(i), entities that are not members of
the NASD may use the Brut system until December 31, 2005. Nasdaq
proposes to amend this provision so as to allow non-NASD member broker-
dealers to use the Brut system through February 8, 2006.\7\ Nasdaq
notes that the continued provision of such access impacts seven current
Brut broker-dealer users (four active and three inactive), which Nasdaq
believes is similar to access already being provided by the Arca
Trading subsidiary of the Archipelago Exchange.\8\ Nasdaq commits that
Brut will not accept any new broker-dealer subscribers to its system
that are non-NASD members during the extended

access period for current non-NASD member broker-dealer system users
proposed in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Nasdaq states that non-NASD member entities that are not
broker-dealers will not be able to use the Brut system beyond
December 31, 2005. Nasdaq states that the February 8, 2006 date was
selected to coincide with the current deadline for non-NASD member
broker-dealers to leave Nasdaq's INET Facility. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 52902 (December 7, 2005); 70 FR 73810
(December 13, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-128). Nasdaq states that the INET
Facility is expected to be merged into the Brut broker-dealer in the
near future.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 (September 22,
2005); 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-90).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the provisions of section 15A of the Act,\9\ in
general, and with section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in
that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and to remove impediments to a free and open market and a national
market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, is subject to
section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder \12\ because the proposal: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest; provided that Nasdaq has given
the Commission notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq has requested that the Commission waive the five-day pre-
filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay. The Commission
believes that waiving the five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest because such waiver will permit current non-NASD
member broker-dealers continued access to the Brut system without
disruption. In addition, the Commission notes that the proposed rule's
February 8, 2006 date matches the date for which non-NASD members are
required to leave Nasdaq's INET facility. For these reasons, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change, as amended, to be
effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, as amended, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
January 3, 2006 and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is January
12, 2006. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as
amended, under section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission
considers the period to commence on January 12, 2006, the date on
which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2006-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-002. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change, as
amended, 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-002 and should be
submitted on or before February 14, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-777 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Appendix B

Methodologies for Inhalation Risk Calculations

and

Human Equivalent Concentration Arrays

METHODOLOGIES FOR INHALATION RISK CALCULATIONS

In evaluating the risks that a compound may pose to human health after
exposure via the inhalation route, different methodologies have been
historically used by the USEPA and CDPR.

The Agency’s approach to calculating risks due to inhalation exposure
is based on the guidance methodology developed by the Office of Research
and Development (ORD) for the derivation of inhalation reference
concentrations (RfCs) and human equivalent concentrations (HECs) for use
in margin of exposure (MOE) calculations (RfC methodology).   An example
of CDPR’s methodology, and the species-specific parameters used in
this approach can be found in the CDPR methyl bromide risk assessment,
Appendix G (   HYPERLINK http://www.cdpr.ca.gov
www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dprdocs/methbrom/append_g.pdf ).  As OPP
understands the importance to harmonize, to the extent possible, with
other regulatory agencies, this risk assessment will present HECs
derived using both methodologies.

The RfC methodology applies a dosimetric adjustment that takes into
consideration not only the differences in ventilation rate (MV) but also
the physicochemical properties of the inhaled compound, the type of
toxicity observed (e.g. systemic vs. port of entry) and the
pharmacokinetic (PK) but not pharmacodynamic (PD) differences between
animals and humans.  Based on the RfC guidance (1994), the methodology
for RfCs derivation is an estimate of the quantitative dose-response
assessment of chronic non-cancer toxicity for individual inhaled
chemicals and includes dosimetric adjustment to account for the
species-specific relationships of exposure concentration to
deposited/delivered dose. This adjustment is influenced by the
physicochemical properties of the inhaled compound as well as the type
of toxicity observed (e.g. systemic vs. port of entry), and takes into
consideration the PK differences between animals and humans.  Though the
RfC methodology was developed to estimate toxicity of inhaled chemicals
over a lifetime, it can be used for other inhalation exposures (e.g.
acute and short-term exposures) since the dosimetric adjustment
incorporates mechanistic determinants of disposition that can be applied
to shorter duration of exposures provided the assumptions underlying the
methodology are still valid.  These assumptions, in turn, vary depending
on the type of toxicity observed and will be discussed later on in this
document.  Thus the derivation of a HEC for inhaled gases is described
by the following equation:

   ADVANCE \u 13

Where:

PODstudy: Point of departure identified in the critical toxicology study

Danimal exposure: Duration of animal exposure (hrs/day; days/wk)

Danticipated exposure: Anticipated human duration of exposure (hrs/day;
days/wk)

RGDR: Regional Gas Dose Ratio

For gases eliciting both port of entry and systemic effects,
calculations to estimate  the inhalation risk to humans are dependent on
the regional gas dose ratio (RGDR).  In the case of systemic effects,
the RGDR is defined as the ratio of the blood:gas partition coefficient
of the chemical for the test species to humans (Hb/g animal/Hb/g human).
 When this ratio is unknown or when the Hb/g animal > Hb/g human a
default value of  1.0 is used as the RGDR.  This default is based on the
observation that for chemicals where partition coefficient data are
available in both rats and humans the RGDR value has usually been
comparable or slightly higher than 1.  Thus, the use of an RGDR of 1
results in a protective calculation of the inhalation risk.   Some of
the key assumptions fundamental to the use of the RfC methodology to
derive a HEC based on systemic effects include:

1) all the concentrations of inhaled gas within the animal’s body are
periodic with respect to time (i.e. periodic steady state - the
concentration vs time profile is the same for every week).  Periodicity
must be attained for at least 90% of the exposure.

2) in the respiratory tract, the air, tissue, capillary blood
concentration are in equilibrium with respect to each other.

3)systemically, the blood and tissue concentrations are in equilibrium
with respect to each other.

In the case of MeBr, the physicochemical properties and metabolism data
for the compound indicate that these conditions (i.e. periodicity and
equilibrium between different compartments) will be achieved in a very
short period of time.  Under these conditions, therefore, the use of the
RfC methodology to estimate acute inhalation risk is appropriate.

When the critical toxic effect in a study occurs in the respiratory
tract (i.e port of entry effects), the RGDR is not related to the
blood:gas partition coefficient of the compound but rather the ratio of
the minute volume (MV) to the surface area (SA) of the affected region.
In these instances, attaining periodicity or equilibrium between the
compartments is not critical (since the effect is a function of the
direct interaction between the inhaled compound and the affected region
in the respiratory tract) and the RGDR may be calculated using the
following equation:

   ADVANCE \u 19

Where:

	MV animal: Minute volume for the test species (varies depending on body
weight)

SA animal: Surface area of the affected region in animals

MV human: Minute volume for humans (default value is 13.8 l/min)

SA human: Surface area of the affected region in humans

The MV animal is calculated using the allometric scaling provided in
USEPA (1988a).  The equation for calculation of the MV animal is:

lnMV animal = b0 + b1ln(BW)

Where:

ln MV animal : natural logarithm of the minute volume

b0 : species specific intercept used in the algorithm to calculate
minute volumes based on body weight

b1: species specific coefficient used in the algorithm to calculate
minute volumes based on body weight

ln BW: natural logarithm of the body weight (expressed in kg)

The values for the species-specific parameters used to calculate the MV
animal based on body weight and the values for the surface areas of
various regions of the respiratory tract (extrathoracic, thoracic, and
pulmonary) are provided in the EPA document “Methods for Derivation of
Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation
Dosimetry” (1994).

The magnitude of the UFs applied is dependent on the methodology used to
calculate risk.  When using the methodology developed by CDPR, a 100X UF
is applied (10X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies
variation).  In contrast, the RfC methodology takes into consideration
the PK differences but not the PD differences.  Consequently, the UF for
interspecies extrapolation may be reduced to 3X (to account for the PD
differences) while the UF for intraspecies variation is retained at 10X.
 Thus, the UF when using the RfC methodology is customarily 30X.

Hazard Assessment Array

HEC Array for Non-Occupational Risk Assessment§

Relevant Study	LOAEL (ppm)	NOAEL (ppm)	Da	Dh	Wa	Wh	RGDR	HEC (ppm)	 Inter
	Intra	UF

Acute Exposure – Soil Fumigation Scenario

ACN- Rat	Systemic	350	100	6	24	1	1	1	25	10	3	1

Dev Rat	Systemic	NA	NA	6	24	1	1	NA	NA	NA	NA	1

Dev Rabbit	Systemic	80	40	6	24	1	1	1	10	10	3	1

Acute Exposure - Greenhouse or Structural Fumigation Scenarios†

ACN- Rat	Systemic	350	100	6	6	1	1	1	100	10	3	1

Dev Rat	Systemic	NA	NA	6	6	1	1	NA	NA	NA	NA	1

Dev Rabbit†	Systemic	80	40	6	6	1	1	1	40	10	3	1

Short Term Exposure

ACN-Rat	Adult	350	100	6	24	1	1	1.00	25	10	3	1

Dev Rat	Maternal

Systemic	70	20	6	24	5	7	1	3.6	10	3	1

	Developmental	NA	70	6	24	5	7	1	13	10	3	1

Dev Rabbit

	Maternal Systemic	80	40	6	24	5	7	1	7.1	10	3	1

	Developmental	80	40	6	24	5	7	1	7.1	10	3	1

SCN-Rat	Systemic	140	70	6	24	5	7	1	13	10	3	1

90D Dog	Systemic	10	5	7	24	5	7	1	1.0	10	3	1

MultiGen Repro: Rat

	Maternal

Systemic	90	30	6	24	5	7	1	5.4	10	3	1

	Offspring

Systemic	30	3	6	24	5	7	1	0.54	10	3	1

DNT	Maternal

Systemic	NA	50	6	24	7	7	1	12.50	10	3	1

	Offspring

Systemic	25	5	6	24	7	7	1	1.25	10	3	1

Intermediate Term Exposure

SCN-Rat	Systemic	70	30	6	24	5	7	1	5.4	10	3	1

90D Dog	Systemic	10	5	7	24	5	7	1	1.0	10	3	1

MultiGen Repro: Rat	Maternal Systemic	90	30	6	24	5	7	1	5.4	10	3	1

	Offspring Systemic	30	3	6	24	5	7	1	0.54	10	3	1

DNT	Maternal

Systemic	NA	50	6	24	7	7	1	12.50	10	3	1

	Offspring

Systemic	25	5	6	24	7	7	1	1.25	10	3	1

Long Term Exposure

SCN-Rat	Systemic	70	30	6	24	5	7	1	5.4	10	3	1

90D Dog	Systemic	10	5	7	24	5	7	1	1.0	10	3	1

MultiGen Repro: Rat	Maternal Systemic	90	30	6	24	5	7	1	5.4	10	3	1

	Offspring Systemic	30	3	6	24	5	7	1	0.54	10	3	1

Chronic Rat	Local	3	NA	6	24	5	7	0.244	0.7320	10	3	3¶

Chronic Mouse	Systemic	100	33	6	24	5	7	1	5.9	10	3	1

§ Bolded studies used for endpoint selection.

¶ A 3X UF for LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolation is recommended due to the
minimal severity of the portal of entry effects noted at the lowest dose
tested.

† 6 hour HECs developed to assess 6 hour exposure from a greenhouse or
structural fumigation scenario.

HEC Array for Occupational Risk Assessment§

Relevant Study	LOAEL (ppm)	NOAEL (ppm)	Da	Dh	Wa	Wh	RGDR	HEC (ppm)	Inter
Intra 	UF

Acute Exposure

ACN-Rat	Systemic	350	100	6	8	1	1	1	75	3	10	1

Dev Rat	Systemic	NA	NA	6	8	1	1	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Dev Rabbit	Systemic	80	40	6	8	1	1	1	30	3	10	1

Short Term Exposure

ACN-Rat	Systemic	350	100	6	8	1	1	1	75	3	10	1

Devel Rat	Maternal Systemic	70	20	6	8	5	5	1	15	3	10	1

	Developmental	NA	70	6	8	5	5	1	53	3	10	1

Dev Rabbit	Maternal Systemic	80	40	6	8	5	5	1	30	3	10	1

	Developmental	80	40	6	8	5	5	1	30	3	10	1

SCN-Rat	Systemic	140	70	6	8	5	5	1	53	3	10	1

90D Dog	Systemic	10	5	7	8	5	5	1	4.4	3	10	1

DNT	Maternal

Systemic	NA	50	6	8	7	7	1	37.50	10	3	1

	Offspring

Systemic	25	5	6	8	7	7	1	3.75	10	3	1

Intermediate Term Exposure

SCN-Rat	Systemic	70	30	6	8	5	5	1	23	3	10	1

90D Dog	Systemic	10	5	7	8	5	5	1	4.4	3	10	1

MultiGen Repro: Rat	Maternal Systemic	90	30	6	8	5	5	1	23	3	10	1

	Offspring Systemic	30	3	6	8	5	5	1	2.3	3	10	1

Chronic Mouse	Systemic	100	33	6	8	5	5	1	25	3	10	1

DNT	Maternal

Systemic	NA	50	6	8	7	7	1	37.50	10	3	1

	Offspring

Systemic	25	5	6	8	7	7	1	3.75	10	3	1

Long Term Exposure

SCN-Rat	70	30	6	8	5	5	1	23	3	10	1

90D Dog	10	5	7	8	5	5	1	4.4	3	10	1

MultiGen Repro: Rat	Maternal	90	30	6	8	5	5	1	23	3	10	1

	Offspring Systemic	30	3	6	8	5	5	1	2.3	3	10	1

Chronic Rat	3	NA	6	8	5	5	0.244	0.549	3	10	3¶

Chronic Mouse	100	33	6	8	5	5	1	25	3	10	1

§ Bolded studies used for endpoint selection.

¶ A 3X UF for LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolation is recommended due to the
minimal severity of the portal of entry effects noted at the lowest dose
tested.

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   1

Key for Array Table

LOAEL: Lowest observed adverse effect level

NOAEL: No observed adverse effect level

Da: Daily animal exposure (hrs/day)

Dh: Anticipated daily human exposure (hrs/day)

Wa: Weekly animal exposure (days/week)

Wh: Anticipated weekly human exposure (days/week)

RGDR: Regional Gas Dose Ratio

HEC: Human Equivalent Concentration

inter: interspecies extrapolation uncertainty factor

intra: intraspecies variation uncertainty factor

UF: Other uncertainty factor(s)


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11191-11193]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03585]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0030; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01395-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that during
installation, a fuel pipe bracket assembly on the intermediate rib in
the center fuel tank was mislocated, resulting in an offset between the
fitting assembly and the refuel/defuel tube assembly. This proposed AD
would require modification of the fuel pipe bracket assembly, including
all related investigative actions and corrective actions, if necessary;
and performing an operational test of the refuel and defuel system. The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-
0030; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<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-2021-0030; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01395-T'' 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 the 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 proposed AD.

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
Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and
Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; 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.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-37, dated October 9,
2020 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI
in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0030.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that during
installation, a fuel pipe bracket assembly on the intermediate rib in
the center fuel tank was mislocated, resulting in an offset between the
fitting assembly and the refuel/defuel tube assembly. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the offset, which could cause a preload on
the fuel pipes and reduce their ability to absorb shock or vibration-
induced loads, making the tube and clamp more prone to stress corrosion
cracking. This could lead to failure of the coupling and the bracket
and p-clamp assembly, resulting in fuel leakage and loss of electrical
bonding between fuel pipes, and lightning-induced sparking that could
induce fuel ignition. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 700-28-6006, dated June 1,
2020. This service information describes procedures for a modification
of the fuel pipe bracket assembly, including investigative actions (a
detailed visual inspection of the fuel pipe assembly for any damaged
paint, permanent deformation, corrosion, cracking, gouges, dents, or
deep scratches); installation of certain new parts; replacement of the
fuel pipe and fuel pipe bracket assembly, if necessary; and an
operational test of the refuel and defuel system. 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.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 51 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 work-hours x $85 per hour = $850..........................            $904           $1,754          $89,454
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
               Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255......          $1,937          $2,192
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included
all known costs in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2021-0030; Project Identifier MCAI-
2020-01395-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by April 12, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9657 through
9844 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during
installation, a fuel pipe bracket assembly on the intermediate rib
in the center fuel tank was mislocated, resulting in an offset
between the fitting assembly and the refuel/defuel tube assembly.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the offset, which could cause
a preload on the fuel pipes and reduce their ability to absorb shock
or vibration-induced loads, making the tube and clamp more prone to
stress corrosion cracking. This could lead to failure of the
coupling and the bracket and p-clamp assembly, resulting in fuel
leakage and loss of electrical bonding between fuel pipes, and
lightning-induced sparking that could induce fuel ignition.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform a
modification of the fuel pipe bracket assembly and refuel tube
assembly; do all related investigative actions and applicable
corrective actions; and perform an operational test of the refuel
and defuel system; in accordance with paragraphs 2.B. and 2.C. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-
28-6006, dated June 1, 2020. All related investigative and
corrective actions must be done before further flight.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-37, dated October 9, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2021-0030.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Siddeeq Bacchus,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on February 4, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03585 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10553-10556]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03966]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74343; File No. SR-BX-2015-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Fee Schedule Under Exchange Rule 7018(a) With Respect to Transactions
in Securities Priced at $1 or More per Share

February 20, 2015.
    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 February 9, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 fee schedule under Exchange Rule
7018(a) with respect to transactions in securities priced at $1 or more
per share.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these

statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend BX Rule 7018(a) to provide an
additional means by which a member firm may qualify for Tier 1 of the
Qualified Market Maker (``QMM'') program. The QMM program provides
incentives to Exchange members to improve the market by quoting at
certain levels for a minimum time. A QMM is a member firm that makes a
significant contribution to market quality by providing liquidity at
the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') in a large number of stocks
for a significant portion of the day. The designation reflects the
QMM's commitment to provide meaningful and consistent support to market
quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at the NBBO in a large
number of securities. In return, qualifying members receive a reduced
charge for displayed liquidity provided. There are two QMM tiers under
Rule 7018(a), which provide different levels of reduced charges for
providing displayed liquidity based on the contribution the QMM makes
to market quality.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Tier 1 has more stringent qualification requirements than
Tier 2. Consequently, QMMs qualifying for Tier 1 are assessed a
charge of $0.0014 per share executed whereas those qualifying for
Tier 2 are assessed a charge of $0.0017 per share executed for
providing displayed liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, to qualify for Tier 1 of the QMM program, a member firm
must have (i) shares of liquidity provided and (ii) total shares of
liquidity accessed and provided in all securities through one or more
of its NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System MPIDs that represent more than
0.40% and 0.50%, respectively, of Consolidated Volume.\4\ For a member
qualifying under this method, the member must have at least one
Qualified MPID that is an MPID through which, for at least 150
securities, the QMM quotes at the NBBO an average of at least 25% of
the time during regular market hours (9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m.)
during the month. Alternatively, a member firm may qualify for Tier 1
if it has (i) shares of liquidity provided and (ii) total shares of
liquidity accessed and provided in all securities through one or more
of its NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System MPIDs that represent more than
0.30% and 0.45%, respectively, of Consolidated Volume during the month.
For a member qualifying under this method, the member must have at
least one Qualified MPID that is an MPID through which, for at least
400 securities, the Qualified Market Maker quotes at the NBBO an
average of at least 25% of the time during regular market hours (9:30
a.m. through 4:00 p.m.) during the month. To qualify under Tier 2 of
the QMM program, a member firm must have at least one Qualified MPID,
that is, an MPID through which, for at least 300 securities, the QMM
quotes at the NBBO an average of at least 75% of the time during the
regular market hours (9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m.) during the month. BX
is proposing to add a new alternative means to qualifying for Tier 1 of
the QMM program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Consolidated Volume is defined as the total consolidated
volume reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by
all exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in
equity securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less
than one round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume
and the extent of a member's trading activity, expressed as a
percentage of or ratio to Consolidated Volume, the date of the
annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes shall be
excluded from both total Consolidated Volume and the member's
trading activity. See Rule 7018(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the new Tier 1 qualification standard, a member firm must
have (i) shares of liquidity provided and (ii) total shares of
liquidity accessed and provided in all securities through one or more
of its NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System MPIDs that represent more than
0.20% and 0.30%, respectively, of Consolidated Volume during the month.
For a member qualifying under this method, the member must have at
least one Qualified MPID, that is, an MPID through which, for at least
200 securities, the QMM quotes at the NBBO an average of at least 50%
of the time during regular market hours (9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m.)
during the month. The member must also provide an average daily volume
of 1.5 million shares or more using orders with midpoint pegging during
the month. The Exchange notes that the percentages of total shares of
liquidity accessed and provided in all securities through its MPIDs is
lower than both of the other two Tier 1 standards, and is higher than
the related Tier 2 standard, which has no such requirement. In
addition, the number of securities that the QMM must quote at the NBBO
is lower than one of the Tier 1 standards and the Tier 2 standard,
although it is higher than the other Tier 1 standard. Lastly, the
amount of time that a member firm must quote at the NBBO in those
securities is higher in the proposed new Tier 1 standard, but lower
than Tier 2 standard. Unlike all of the current Tier 1 and Tier 2
standards, the new proposed Tier 1 standard requires a member firm to
also provide an average daily volume of 1.5 million shares or more
using orders with midpoint pegging during the month. The Exchange notes
that although displayed orders are generally preferred to non-displayed
orders because they assist in price discovery, the use of midpoint
orders should also be encouraged through pricing incentives because
they provide price improvement. Accordingly, adding an additional
requirement that provides an incentive to provide midpoint pegging
orders is consistent with the QMM program's goal of improving the
market on BX.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that it provides reduced fees for
providing midpoint liquidity through Midpoint Peg orders. See Rule
7018(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is implementing the proposed change on February 9,
2015. The calculations of the rule, however, are based on a full
month's trading. As such, for the abbreviated first month that the new
rule is effective, the Exchange is basing the calculations of the
criteria of the new standard on the trading that occurs during the
effective date through the end of the month. Otherwise, all member
firms would be penalized by the shorter timeframe in which to meet the
standard.
2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is 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; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because it provides a further incentive to BX member firms to enhance
the quality of the market by providing meaningful improvement, to the
benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed criteria of the new qualification standard are both reasonable
and an equitable allocation because they are comparable to the other
two means of qualifying for Tier 1. Although some requirements are
lower than those of the current standards, the Exchange has added an
additional mid-point pegging requirement, which the Exchange believes
makes the new standard as stringent as the existing standards, and more
so than the Tier 2 standard. As a consequence, all member firms that
qualify under the new standard will receive the benefits of the Tier
and those that do qualify under the new standard have provided
comparable market improvement as other member firms that qualify under
the other standards of Tier 1. The Exchange also believes that it is
reasonable and an equitable allocation of the fee to consider only
Consolidated Volume that accrued during the time that the new Tier 1
standard is effective for the month of February 2015. As noted, the
Exchange is implementing the new standard on February 9, 2015. Various
criteria under the new standard compare the trading that the member
firm does during the month against monthly totals of Consolidated
Volume for the full month. Solely for the purpose of calculating
eligibility for the abbreviated month of February 2015, the Exchange is
only considering the member's activity and Consolidated Volume for the
time that the rule is effective on February 9th through the end of the
month. The exchange believes that by doing so, all member firms will
have the opportunity to qualify under the new standard without penalty
for the abbreviated time to reach the levels of trading required by the
rule.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change further
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by increasing the
means by which a member firm may qualify for this beneficial, market
improving program. The new standard is based on an alternative mix of
market-improving order activity. Accordingly, to the extent that the
new standard increases the number of member firms that qualify under
the tier, market quality will increase.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\8\
BX notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor over 40 different competing
exchanges and alternative trading systems if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, BX must
continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, BX believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In this instance, the addition of the new Tier 1 QMM standard
provides an additional means for member firms to improve the market to
gain the benefit of the reduced charge for adding displayed liquidity.
Member firms are not compelled to participate in the program if they
deem the requirements too burdensome to justify the reduced charge.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
will impair the ability of member firms or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2015-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-011. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-
2015-011, and should be submitted on or before March 19, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03966 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4690-4691]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1638]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0008; FRL-8862-3]

Menthol and Propetamphos; Registration Review Proposed Decisions;
Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed
registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in the table in
Unit II.A. and opens a public comment period on the proposed decisions.
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, that the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. 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.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest
provided in the table in Unit II.A., by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line 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's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the
table in Unit II.A. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line
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 e-
mail. 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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail 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's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information,
contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the table in Unit II.A.
    For general information on the registration review program,
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:
(703) 305-5026; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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, farm worker, 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 chemical review manager 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 e-mail. 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.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's proposed registration review decisions for the pesticides
shown in the table in this unit, and opens a 60-day public comment
period on the proposed decisions. Menthol is a biochemical pesticide
used to control mites in over-wintering bee hives. Propetamphos is an
organophosphate (OP) insecticide used for non-residential indoor crack
and crevice treatment to control crawling insects, primarily, ants,
cockroaches, and fleas. Propetamphos acts as a contact and stomach
action poison with long residual effects. It shares a common mechanism
of toxicity with other OPs, namely, a common biochemical interaction
with the cholinesterase enzyme.

              Table--Registration Review Proposed Decisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Chemical review
 Registration review case name   Pesticide Docket   manager,  telephone
            and No.                   ID No.           number, E-mail
                                                          address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Menthol; Case 4063............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0  Colin G. Walsh; (703)
<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Propetamphos; Case 2550.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1  Kylie Rothwell; (703)
<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier
documents related to the registration review of the case. For example,
the review opened with the posting of a Summary Document, containing a
Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan was posted
to the docket following public comment on the initial docket. The
documents in the initial dockets described the Agency's rationales for
not conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review
of the pesticides included in the table in this unit. These proposed
registration review decisions continue to be supported by those
rationales included in documents in the initial dockets. Following
public comment, the Agency will issue registration review decisions for
products containing the pesticides listed in the table in this unit.
    The registration review program is being conducted under
Congressionally- mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both
to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as
amended, required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for
reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing
each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide
continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's
final rule to implement this program was issued in August 2006 and
became effective in October 2006 and appears at 40 CFR part 155,
subpart C. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA)
was amended and extended in September 2007. FIFRA, as amended by PRIA
in 2007, requires EPA to complete registration review decisions by
October 1, 2022, for all pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed registration
review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an
opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any
necessary amendments to the proposed decision. All comments should be
submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA
on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the
docket for the pesticides included in the table in this unit. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The registration review decision will explain the effect
that any comments had on the decision and provide the Agency's response
to significant comments.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review. Links to earlier
documents related to the registration review of these pesticides are
provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/reg_review_status.htm.

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 3(g) of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, provide
authority for this action.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Menthol and propetamphos, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: January 20, 2011.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-1638 Filed 1-21-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 204)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59939-59943]
[DOCID:fr23oc07-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 157

[Docket No. RM07-17-000; Order No. 700]

Revisions to Landowner Notification and Blanket Certificate
Regulations

Issued October 18, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending its regulations to modify landowner notification requirements
and to require a noise survey following the completion of projects
involving compressor facilities undertaken pursuant to blanket
certificate authority. The proposed regulatory revisions are intended
to enhance public participation in the Commission's consideration of
proposed projects and ensure that compressor projects completed under
blanket certificate authority will not have a significant adverse
environmental impact.

DATES: The regulatory revisions made in this Final Rule will become
effective November 23, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Wagner, Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-8947.
    Michael McGehee, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-8962.

    Lonnie Lister, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-502-8587.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher,
Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon
Wellinghoff.

I. Introduction

    1. On June 22, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to amend its
regulations to modify landowner notification requirements and require a
noise survey following the completion of projects involving compressor
facilities undertaken pursuant to blanket certificate authority.\1\
These regulatory revisions are intended to enhance public participation
in the Commission's consideration of proposed projects and ensure that
compressor projects completed under blanket certificate authority will
not have a significant adverse environmental impact. Comments on the
NOPR were submitted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior)
and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). This
Final Rule responds to the comments and adopts, with minor
modifications, the regulatory revisions described in the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 72 FR 35669 (June 29, 2007), FERC Stats. and Regs.] 32,616
(2007). The NOPR followed an expansion of the blanket certificate
program, see Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and
Clarification Regarding Rates, Order No. 686, 71 FR 63680 (Oct. 31,
2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,231 (2006), order on reh'g and
clarification, Order No. 686-A, 72 FR 37431 (July 10, 2007), FERC
Stats. and Regs. ] 31,249 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 686-B,
FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 31,255 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Regulatory Revisions

    2. The NOPR discusses proposed changes to the existing regulations
regarding landowner notification and compressor noise restrictions.
Comments submitted address the latter.

A. Landowner Notification

    3. The NOPR discusses expanding the Sec.  157.6(d)(2)(iii)
landowner notification requirement. Currently, this requirement directs
natural gas companies planning to construct compressor or liquefied
natural gas (LNG) facilities to notify all landowners whose property
contains a residence within one-half mile of the project site before
beginning any construction.\2\ This will be revised to remove the
residence qualification, and will instead direct companies to notify
all landowners within one-half mile of the site of a planned compressor
or LNG project regardless of whether the property contains a residence.
This revision should ensure all landowners within one-half mile of a
proposed project site will receive notice that will allow them to raise
land use issues, including existing non-residential uses as well as
planned future uses of undeveloped land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the landowner notification requirements, 18 CFR
157.203(d)(1) and (2), and the definition of affected landowners, 18
CFR 157.6(d)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Noise Survey

    4. To ensure that compressor facilities installed under blanket
certificate authority will not have significant adverse environmental
impacts, compressor facilities must be designed to meet the noise level
limits described below. To verify blanket certificate compressor
facilities meet these noise level limits, this order will revise Sec.
157.206(b)(5) to require that companies completing a blanket
certificate compressor project file a noise survey with the Commission.
If this post-project survey shows the facility is emitting excessive
noise, the company will have up to one year from the project's in-
service date to meet the noise limits. After completing its noise
mitigation measures, the company will submit a subsequent noise survey
to verify compliance with the noise limits.

This same noise survey requirement is routinely applied to compressor
facilities installed under case-specific certificate authority.
    5. A company may rely on blanket certificate authority to undertake
qualifying projects provided: (1) Noise-generating equipment installed
under blanket certificate authority, whether an entire new compressor
station or an addition or modification to an existing station, does not
exceed an average day-night sound level (Ldn) of 55 decibels
(dBA) at a noise sensitive area (NSA) when operating at full load; (2)
an addition or modification to an existing compressor station, which is
currently emitting noise at an Ldn of 55 dBA or less at
NSAs, does not cause noise at NSAs to exceed an Ldn of 55
dBA; and (3) an addition or modification to an existing compressor
station, which is currently emitting noise in excess of an
Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs, does not cause noise to increase at
NSAs.

III. Comments and Commission Response

    6. Comments by Interior question whether an Ldn of 55
dBA might adversely impact certain wildlife resources. Comments by
INGAA seek clarification on how compressor noise is to be measured.

A. Department of the Interior's Comments

    7. Interior points out that 55 dBA was designated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a noise level adequate to
protect against speech interference and sleep disturbance for
residential, education, and healthcare NSAs.\3\ Given that the 55 dBA
level is based on human activity, Interior is concerned that this level
fails to account for impacts on species that may be more sensitive to
noise. Interior urges that screening for such species be required for
blanket certificate projects and asks the Commission to direct blanket
project applicants to contact Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service,
along with the appropriate state fish and wildlife agency or state
Natural Heritage Database, to identify the presence of threatened or
endangered species and noise-sensitive species or habitats in the
project vicinity. If there are such species or habitats, Interior would
then require the project applicant to seek case-specific certificate
authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission relied on this EPA designation in conducting
its Environmental Assessment (EA) of the blanket certificate
program, finding that compressors should not increase ambient noise
levels at nearby NSAs above an Ldn of 55 dBA, since 55
dBA is ``the maximum level which will not affect public health and
welfare by interfering with speech or other activities in outdoor
areas * * * [and consequently] should also ensure adequate
protection for the indoor noise environment.'' Blanket Certification
of Routine Gas Pipeline Transactions, EA at 25 (July 1981), citing
EPA's Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety
(Washington, DC 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. While appropriate to most circumstances, the Commission
recognizes that 55 dBA ought not be applied inflexibly or
universally.\4\ That said, the Commission finds that potential adverse
impacts on species and habitat due to noise are adequately taken into
account by the requirement that all blanket certificate projects comply
with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).\5\ Compliance with the
ESA effectively compels a blanket certificate holder to engage in the
same screening and consultation that Interior requests for threatened
and endangered species. Accordingly, the Commission expects the ESA
compliance process will continue to provide the most appropriate means
for assessing whether a proposed blanket certificate project's
permitted noise level of 55 dBA might have significant adverse impacts
on wildlife resources. In addition, the Commission notes that the
expanded landowner notification requirement implemented herein should
promote consideration of noise impacts on the use of land for non-
residential purposes, such as the cultivation of a domesticated noise-
sensitive species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EA reviewing the blanket certificate program noted the
possibility that ``compressor facilities constructed in some rural
areas could degrade a quiet environment because a blanket
authorization would require little or no noise abatement in remote
or unpopulated areas.'' Id. at 33.
    \5\ 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. INGAA's Comments

    9. The NOPR proposed that Sec.  157.206(b)(5)(ii) direct a blanket
certificate project sponsor to measure ``noise attributable to the
operation of the facility at full load.'' INGAA seeks clarification on
conducting a post-project noise survey, asking whether ``the facility''
is intended to refer to the particular equipment added or modified
under blanket certificate authorization, or whether ``the facility'' is
intended to include all the facilities, i.e., both existing facilities
as well as new or modified facilities located at a particular
compressor site. In response to INGAA's request, we will revise Sec.
157.206(b)(5)(ii) as described below.
    10. As a threshold measure, for a compressor facility to qualify
for blanket certificate authorization, the facility must be designed to
meet an Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs when operating at full load.
Requiring that a facility added or modified under blanket certificate
authority meet this maximum noise limit is intended to ensure that
there will not be a significant adverse environmental noise impact.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. With respect to noise impacts, the Commission will also
consider the composite noise level of a compressor station's new and
existing facilities. This is because a facility that meets an
Ldn of 55 dBA, when added to a station currently operating
an Ldn of 55 dBA, can cause the overall noise of the station
to exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA. Thus, the Commission will
require that an addition or modification to an existing compressor
station that is operating at or below an Ldn of 55 dBA at
NSAs must not cause overall noise attributable to the station to exceed
an Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs. Further, an addition or
modification to an existing compressor station that is operating above
an Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs must not cause overall noise
attributable to the station to increase at NSAs.
    12. To ensure adherence to these noise level limits, the Commission
will require a company that relies on its blanket certificate to
construct a new compressor station facility, or to add or modify a
facility at an existing station, to submit a noise survey within 60
days of placing the new or modified facility in service. The company
must measure noise attributable to its new or modified facility
operating at full load at NSAs. When a new or modified facility is
placed in service at an existing compressor station, the company must
also measure the overall post-project noise of the station operating at
full load. If the measured noise exceeds the specified limits at NSAs,
the company must bring its station into compliance within a year of the
blanket certificate facility's in-service date. Within 60 days of
completing its noise-mitigation measures, e.g., making modifications to
noise-generating equipment or erecting a barrier between the station
and NSAs, the company must submit a subsequent noise survey to the
Commission demonstrating its compliance with the noise level limits.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    13. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting, record keeping, and public
disclosure requirements (collections of information) imposed by an
agency.\7\ Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will
assign an OMB

control number and an expiration date. The only entities affected by
this rule would be the natural gas companies under the Commission's
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The information collection requirements in this Final Rule are
identified as FERC-537, ``Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction,
Acquisition and Abandonment,'' which identifies the Commission's
information collections relating to Part 157 of its regulations, which
apply to natural gas facilities for which authorization under section 7
of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) is required, and includes all blanket
certificate projects, and FERC-577, ``Gas Pipeline Certificates:
Environmental Impact Statements,'' which identifies the Commission's
information collections relating to the requirements set forth in
National Environmental Policy Act and Parts 2, 157, 284, and 380 of the
Commission's regulations, and requires applicants to conduct
appropriate studies necessary to determine the impact of the
construction and operation of proposed jurisdictional facilities on
human and natural resources, and the measures which may be necessary to
protect the values of the affected area. These information collection
requirements are mandatory.
    15. The revised regulations require that companies seeking to
construct or alter compressor or LNG facilities notify all landowners
within one-half mile of the boundary of the project site. This should
necessitate only a nominal additional effort, since companies are
already required to identify all landowners of record within one-half
mile of the project site, and then notify the subset of those
landowners that have a residence on their property. In practice,
companies routinely give notice to all identified landowners, rather
than take the extra step of segregating properties with residences from
those without so as to give notice only to the former. In view of this
practice, the Commission expects the time and cost to notify non-
residential landowners will prove to be de minimis.
    16. The Noise Control Act of 1972 established the requirement that
all federal agencies administer their programs to promote an
environment free of noise that jeopardizes public health and
welfare.\8\ In 1974, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, acting
to execute its responsibility to coordinate federal research and
activities related to noise control, identified an Ldn of 55
dBA as necessary to protect against speech interference and sleep
disturbance for residential, educational, and healthcare activities.
The revised regulations state that a company adding or altering
compressor facilities under blanket certificate authority must submit a
noise survey within 60 days of placing new facilities in service to
demonstrate that noise attributable to the operation of the company's
compressors does not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA at nearby NSAs
or increase noise at NSAs already in excess of an Ldn of 55
dBA. The Commission does not view this as substantially modifying
natural gas companies' existing obligations, since the proposed
submission of a noise survey simply provides verification of compliance
with the existing noise requirement. The same noise survey requirement
is routinely applied to compressor projects subject to case-specific
NGA section 7 certificate authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 42 U.S.C. 4901, et seq.
    \9\ The potential cost savings to the industry that may be
realized by enabling projects previously permitted only under case-
specific authority to proceed under the expanded blanket certificate
program were discussed in the Final Rule in Order No. 686. With
respect to the proposed noise survey, the Commission notes that
case-specific projects require a noise survey both before and after
construction. Thus, the relatively minor cost of conducting a post-
construction noise survey for a blanket certificate project is
expected to be offset by the benefit of not having to also conduct a
noise survey before construction, as would be necessary for a case-
specific certificate project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The Commission is submitting these reporting requirements to
OMB for its review and approval under Sec.  3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\10\ The Commission solicited comments on the
need for these regulatory revisions and the accuracy of estimated
burden estimates, as well as how the quality, quantity, and clarity of
the information to be collected might be enhanced, and any suggested
methods for minimizing the respondent's burden. The comments submitted
did not specifically address the new reporting requirements;
accordingly, the Commission will use the same estimates here as in the
NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The Commission estimates it will require 32 hours to complete a
noise survey, and expects the additional burden to be modest, given
that in 2006 only two compressor projects went forward under blanket
certificate authority. For the purpose of estimating burden hours, the
Commission anticipates five such projects in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
               Data collection                   Number of        responses/    Number of hours    Total annual
                                                respondents        Filings        per response        hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-537 (Part 157).........................               5                5               32              160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: The above reflects the total
reporting burden associated with the proposed broadening of the
landowner notification requirement. Because of the regional differences
and the various staffing levels that will be involved in preparing the
documentation (legal, technical, and support) the Commission is using
an hourly rate of $150 to estimate the costs for filing and other
administrative processes (reviewing instructions, searching data
sources, completing and transmitting the collection of information).
The estimated cost per project is $4,800, with an estimated annual
total of $24,000.
    Title: FERC-537.
    Action: Proposed Data Collection.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0060 and 1902-0128.
    Respondents: Natural gas pipeline companies.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of Information: Submission of the information is
necessary for the Commission to carry out its NGA statutory
responsibilities and meet the Commission's objectives of expediting
appropriate infrastructure development to ensure sufficient energy
supplies while addressing landowner and environmental concerns fairly.
Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements
by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the
Executive Director]. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission].

V. Environmental Analysis

    19. The Commission is required to prepare an EA or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for any action that may have a significant
adverse effect on the human environment.\11\ In promulgating the
blanket certificate program in 1982, the Commission prepared an EA in
which it determined that, subject to compliance with the standard
environmental conditions, projects under the blanket program would not
have a significant adverse environmental impact. In particular, the EA
concluded that an Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs would be adequate to
avoid interfering with speech or other activities in outdoor areas and
ensure adequate protection for the indoor noise environment. As
discussed herein, the Commission is expanding landowner notification
and requiring the submission of a post-project noise survey for blanket
certificate activities involving compressor facilities. Because these
actions serve to better inform the public of proposed projects and to
further ensure and verify that no blanket certificate project has a
significant adverse environmental impact, these regulatory revisions do
not constitute a major federal action that may have a significant
adverse effect on the human environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    20. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \12\ generally
requires a description and analysis of regulations that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if regulations
would not have such an effect.\13\ Under the industry standards used
for purposes of the RFA, a natural gas pipeline company qualifies as
``a small entity'' if it has annual revenues of $6.5 million or less.
Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's
definition of a small entity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \13\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (2000).
    \14\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing to section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 623 (2000). Section 3 of the Small Business Act
defines a ``small-business concern'' as a business which is
independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its
field of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. This order's regulatory revisions will have no significant
economic impact on those entities--be they large or small--subject to
the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction under NGA section 3 or 7, and
no significant economic impact on state agencies. Accordingly, the
Commission certifies that these regulatory revisions will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VII. Document Availability

    22. 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 print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's

Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
User assistance is available for FERC's Web site during normal business
hours from FERC's Online Support at<PHONE_NUMBER>, toll free at 1-866-
208-3676, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and from the
Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    23. This Final Rule will take effect November 23, 2007. The
Commission has determined with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, that this rule is not a major rule within the meaning of
section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996.\15\ The Commission will submit this Final Rule to both houses
of Congress and the Government Accountability Office.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    \16\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, part 157, Chapter I, Title 18, Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w.

0
2. In Sec.  157.6, paragraph (d)(2)(iii) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  157.6  Applications; general requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Is within one-half mile of proposed compressors or their
enclosures or LNG facilities; or
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  157.206, paragraph (b)(5)(ii) is redesignated as paragraph
(b)(5)(iii) and a new paragraph (b)(5)(ii) is added, to read as
follows:

Sec.  157.206  Standard conditions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) A compressor facility installed under this section must be
designed to meet the following noise emissions criteria. For each new
compressor station facility, and for each addition or modification to
an existing compression station, the blanket certificate holder must
file a noise survey with the Secretary within 60 days of placing the
facility in service.
    (A) If noise emitted from a new compressor facility operating at
full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any noise-sensitive
area (NSA), or if an addition or modification to an existing compressor
station operating at full load at or below an Ldn of 55 dBA
at NSAs causes overall noise attributable to the station to exceed an
Ldn of 55 dBA at an NSA, the blanket certificate holder must
come into compliance with an Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs within 1
year of placing the facility in service.
    (B) If an addition or modification to an existing compressor
station operating at full load above an Ldn of 55 dBA at
NSAs causes overall noise attributable to the station to increase at an
NSA, the blanket certificate holder must act within 1 year of placing
the added or modified facility in service to reduce noise at NSAs to
the level that existed prior to the addition or modification.
    (C) If the initial noise survey demonstrates a need to take action
to mitigate noise, within 60 days of completing such action, the
blanket certificate holder must file a subsequent noise survey with the
Secretary demonstrating that each new compressor station facility, and
each addition or modification to an existing

compressor station, complies with the noise level limits.
* * * * *

 [FR Doc. E7-20804 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P