[Federal Register: July 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 40861-40862]
[DOCID:fr16jy08-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 309-062]

Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek, LLC; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions

July 9, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 309-062.
    c. Date Filed: January 22, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Piney Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Clarion River, in
Clarion County, Pennsylvania. The project does not occupy any federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. David Barnhart, West Virginia Production
Center, P.O. Box 849, Gauley Bridge, WV 25085,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Mr.
Glen Neiport, Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek, LLC, Piney Station,
2000 River Road, Clarion, PA 16214,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, motions to intervene,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and fishway
prescriptions is due 60 days from the issuance date of this notice;
reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-309-062) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The existing licensed project consists
of (1) A 784-foot-long and 125-foot-high concrete arch dam; (2) an 800-
surface-acre reservoir, which operates at a minimum water surface
elevation of 1,090 feet msl from June 21 through October 31, 1,085 feet
msl from November 1 through March 31, and 1092.5  0.5 feet
msl from April 1 through June 20; (3) three 14-foot-diameter penstocks
between 232 and 300 feet long; and (4) a powerhouse with three
generating units totaling 29.08 megawatts installed capacity.
    The licensee proposes to amend the license to implement the
following: (1) To operate the reservoir on non-holiday weekdays from
June 21 through October 31, between water surface elevations of 1,089
and 1,093 feet msl, a change from the current reservoir range of 1,090
and 1,093 feet msl. However, the licensee will maintain a minimum water
surface elevation in the reservoir no lower than 1,090 feet msl, on
weekends, where the weekend is defined as between 2400 hours on Friday
through 2400 hours on Sunday. Additionally, the minimum reservoir
surface elevation for the July 4 and Labor Day holidays shall be 1,090
feet msl, where the minimum reservoir level shall start at 1800 hours
the day before the holiday and end on the holiday at 2400 hours; (2)
repair, replace or extend the Mill Creek boat launch ramp as necessary
so it can function at 1,089 feet; and (3) on the fifth anniversary date
of the license, contribute $100,000 to an interest-bearing account
(recreational account), whose funds shall be used by the licensee to
pay for recreational and boating access enhancements that are agreed
upon as necessary by the Piney Lake Advisory Council. The additional
one-foot drawdown will increase the average annual generation at the
project by approximately 675 megawatt hours per year.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests, interventions, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and fishway prescriptions may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``PROTEST,'' ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE,'' ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``
TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or `` FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in
the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and

conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions should relate to
project works which are the subject of the license amendment.
    Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16209 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63555-63558]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22662]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96073; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2022-043]

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

October 13, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 3, 2022, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX Options'')
proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the

Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to modify rebates
related to Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') transactions,
effective October 3, 2022.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share and
currently the Exchange represents only approximately 6% of the market
share.\3\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive
market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange, possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. The
Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Monthly Volume
Summary (September 30, 2022), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Fees Schedule sets forth standard rebates and rates
applied per contract. For example, the Exchange provides standard
rebates ranging from $0.01 up to $0.21 per contract for Customer orders
in both Penny and Non-Penny Securities. The Fee Codes and Associated
Fees section of the Fees Schedule also provides for certain fee codes
associated with certain order types and market participants that
provide for various other fees or rebates. Fee code BC, for example, is
appended to Customer Agency orders executed in the Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'' or ``AIM Auction'') and currently offers
a rebate of $0.06 per contract. Additionally, the Fee Schedule offers
tiered pricing which provides Members \4\ opportunities to qualify for
higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and
thresholds are met. Additionally, in response to the competitive
environment, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing, which provides
Members with opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced
fees where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered
pricing provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for
higher tier levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or
discounts for satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the Exchange currently offers two AIM Volume Tiers
which provide enhanced rebates between $0.11 and $0.12 per contract for
qualifying Customer orders that yield fee code BC where a Member meets
the respective tiers' volume threshold.\5\ More specifically, AIM Tier
1 currently offers an enhanced rebate of $0.11 per contract for a
Member's qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee code BC) if a Member has
an ADV \6\ in Customer Orders greater than or equal to 0.30% of average
OCV.\7\ AIM Tier 2 currently offers an enhanced rebate of $0.12 per
contract for a Member's qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee code BC)
if a Member has an ADV in Customer Orders greater than or equal to
0.50% of average OCV. The Exchange first proposes to reduce the current
rebates for both AIM Tiers. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
reduce the current enhanced rebate for AIM Tier 1 from $0.11 per
contract to $0.09 per contract. The Exchange proposes to reduce the
current enhanced rebate for AIM Tier 2 from $0.12 per contract to $0.10
per contract. The Exchange notes that it believes the AIM Tiers
continue to provide Members with an opportunity to receive an enhanced
rebate (albeit at a lower amount), thus providing a continued incentive
to submit Customer order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Cboe EDGX U.S. Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Footnote
9, Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') Tiers.
    \6\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of contracts added or removed, combined, per day.
    \7\ ``OCC Customer Volume or ``OCV'' means the total equity and
ETF options volume that clears in the Customer range at the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for the month for which the fees
apply, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an
Exchange System Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early
market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt new supplemental AIM Tiers
(under Footnote 9) which would provide additional rebates (i.e., in
addition to the standard rebate or enhanced rebates Members may receive
for Customer Agency orders executed in AIM). The proposed tiers would
be applicable to fee code BC and applied on an order-by-order basis. In
addition to a volume threshold described below, the proposed tiers
would include criteria based on the ``Interaction Rate'' of the order.
Particularly, the Exchange proposes to add new Supplemental Tier 1,
which would provide an additional rebate of $0.02 per contract where a
Member (i) has an ADV in Customer Orders greater than or equal to 0.50%
of average OCV and (ii) the order has an Interaction Rate greater than
or equal to 51% and less than 80%. The Exchange proposes to add new
Supplemental Tier 2, which would provide an additional rebate of $0.05
per contract where a Member (i) has Member has an ADV in Customer
Orders greater than or equal to 0.50% of average OCV and (ii) the order
has an Interaction Rate greater than or equal to 0% and less than 51%.
The ``Interaction Rate'' of an order refers to the percentage of the
Agency Order that traded against the Initiating Order.\8\ By way of
example, if an AIM Agency Order trades 35 out of 40 contracts with the
paired Initiating Order (i.e., 15 [sic] contracts were executed against
a response or unrelated order), the Interaction Rate would be 87.5% (35
/ 40). Because the Interaction Rate was above 80% in this example, that
order would not qualify for either additional rebate. However, if an
AIM Agency Order trades 25 out of 40 contracts with the paired
Initiating Order, the Interaction Rate would be 62.5% (25 / 40), and
that order would be entitled to an additional rebate of $0.02 per

contract (provided the Member also meets the requirements of the first
prong and has an ADV in Customer Orders greater than or equal to 0.50%
of average OCV). The proposed new tiers are designed to incentivize
order flow providers to continue to route AIM orders to the Exchange,
notwithstanding the potential for such orders to be broken up. The
Exchange also proposes to clarify that the additional proposed rebates
will apply to the Member that submitted a qualifying AIM Agency Order,
including a Member who routed an order to the Exchange with a
Designated Give Up, when the Agency Order trades with a Response Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An Options Member may electronically submit for execution in
AIM an order it represents as agent (``Agency Order'') against
principal interest or a solicited order(s) (except for an order for
the account of any Options Market Maker registered in the applicable
series on the Exchange) (an ``Initiating Order''). See EDGX Options
Rule 21.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change
reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members.
    The Exchange believes the proposed reduction in rebate amounts
under AIM Tiers 1 and 2 for orders yielding fee code BC is reasonable
both tiers continue to provide an enhanced rebate (albeit at lower
amounts), which the Exchange believes is still commensurate with the
current criteria. The proposed rule change is equitable and unfairly
[sic] discriminatory as the amended rebate amounts apply uniformly to
all Members' respective qualifying Customer orders. The Exchange
believes that the current AIM Tiers continue to benefit all Members by
contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
Indeed, the Exchange believes AIM Tiers 1 and 2 will continue to
incentivize increased Customer order flow and overall order flow to the
Exchange's Book, which creates more trading opportunities, which, in
turn attracts Market-Makers. A resulting increase in Market-Maker
activity may facilitate tighter spreads, which may lead to an
additional increase of order flow from other market participants.
Increased overall order flow benefits all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater execution
incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all
investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor
protection.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to adopt new AIM
Supplemental Tiers is reasonable because it provides an opportunity for
Members to receive additional rebates for meeting certain thresholds
and based on the Interaction Rate of the AIM order. The Exchange also
believes the proposed additional rebates are commensurate with the
proposed criteria. The Exchange further believes the proposal
encourages the use of AIM. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the
proposed additional rebates for AIM Agency Orders would incentivize
Agency Order flow to AIM Auctions, notwithstanding the potential for
such orders to be broken up. Additional auction order flow provides
market participants with additional trading opportunities at improved
prices. Moreover, exchanges have a history of providing credits when an
auctioned order is broken up.\12\ Lastly, the proposed additional
rebates are not unreasonably discriminatory because such rebates are
equally available to all Members submitting AIM Agency Orders to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., Nasdaq ISE Options 7 Pricing Schedule,
Facilitation and Solicitation Break-Up Rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, but rather, serves to increase
intra-market competition by incentivizing members to direct their
orders, and, in particular, Customer orders, to the Exchange's AIM
Auction, in turn providing for more opportunities to compete at
improved prices. Moreover, the Exchange notes the proposed change to
AIM Tiers will apply to all Members equally in that all Members will be
eligible to receive the rebates under the tiers, have a reasonable
opportunity to meet the tier's criteria and receive the enhanced
rebates (albeit at a lower amount) on their qualifying orders if such
criteria is met.
    Also, as stated above, the proposal to adopt the proposed
Supplemental AIM Tiers will also apply to all Members, in that, such
Tier will be available for any Member that meets the criteria. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed changes burden competition as
all Members will continue to have an opportunity receive enhanced
rebates or additional rebates offered under various tiers, which tiers
are generally designed to increase the competitiveness of EDGX and
attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their
participation on the Exchange, providing for additional execution
opportunities for market participants and improved price transparency.
Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing
transparency benefit all market participants on the Exchange by
enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send
orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market
ecosystem.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues they may participate on and
direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges.
Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall
market. Based on publicly available information, no

single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share.
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of order flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchanges if they deem fee levels at those
other venues to be more favorable. As noted above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fee changes are comparable to that of other
exchanges offering similar functionality. Moreover, the Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' The fact that this market is competitive has
also long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is 'fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, '[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . . ''. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \14\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-043 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-043. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-043 and should be
submitted on or before November 9, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22662 Filed 10-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 202 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66290-66292]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0424]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Vieques Unexploded Ordnance Operations, East
Vieques; Vieques, Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish permanent safety
zones for certain waters of Vieques, Puerto Rico. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters
near the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico due to unexploded ordnances.
This proposed rulemaking would prohibit mariners from anchoring,
dredging, or trawling in the designated areas. It would also prohibit
persons and vessels from being in the safety zones during clearance
operations, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port San Juan or a
designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before November 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0424 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Natallia Lopez, Sector
San Juan Prevention Department, Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PR Puerto Rico
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
UXO Unexploded Ordnance

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On April 30, 2020, contractors on behalf of the U.S. Navy contacted
the Coast Guard requesting the establishment of permanent safety zones
surrounding unexploded ordnances (UXO) in Vieques, PR. The Navy has
implemented long-term plans for the deactivation and removal of the
UXOs, but safety zones are needed until those operations are completed.
The Captain of the Port San Juan (COTP) has determined that potential
hazards associated with the UXOs would be a safety concern for anyone
within the designated areas.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within the designated areas until the complete
deactivation and removal of all UXOs. The Coast Guard is proposing this
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish permanent safety zones in the
navigable waters east of Vieques, Puerto Rico. UXOs from past military
training operations remain present in the waters of east Vieques,
Puerto Rico. The U.S. Navy is currently in the process of planning,
retrieving, and properly disposing of the UXOs in this area. These
operations will be ongoing for the next 20 years. Accordingly, ordnance
clearing operations will be held at various times on the waters of East
Vieques, Puerto Rico. UXOs will be retrieved by several divers working
for the U.S. Navy.
    This proposed safety zones area encompasses waters in East Vieques,
Puerto Rico. In areas where UXOs are known to be in shallow waters,
where mariners have been known to anchor which creates risk for the
unintended detonation of UXOs. The safety zones would prohibit vessels
from anchoring, dredging, or trawling in the designated areas at all
times. Further, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter,
transit through, or remain in the safety zones during clearance
operations due to increased risk of explosion and fragmentation
hazards.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the proposed permanent safety
zones by contacting the Captain of the Port San

Juan by VHF-FM radio on Channels 16 and 22A, by calling Sector San Juan
Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
authorization to enter, transit through, or remain in the zones during
ordnance clearing operations or anchor, dredge, or trawl at any time is
granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must
comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port San Juan or a
designated representative.
    Coast Guard Sector San Juan will, when necessary and practicable,
notify the maritime community of periods during which the safety zones
will be in effect by providing advance notice of scheduled arrivals and
departure of liquefied gas carriers via a Marine Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and restrictions of the safety zones. Vessels will be
permitted to enter the safety zones when UXO operations are not being
conducted so long as they do not anchor, dredge, or trawl.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rulemaking would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a
regulated navigation area. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and

will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.787 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.787   Safety Zones; Vieques Unexploded Ordnance Operations,
East Vieques; Vieques, Puerto Rico.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated areas are established
as a safety zones: (1) All waters of East Vieques, Vieques, Puerto Rico
encompassed within the following points: starting at Point 1 in
position 18[deg] 08' 56.48'' N, 065[deg] 20' 10.69'' W; thence north to
point 2 in position 18[deg] 09' 10.72'' N, 065[deg] 20' 04.11'' W;
thence east to Point 3 in position 18[deg] 08' 50.19'' N, 065[deg] 17'
05.78'' W; thence south to Point 4 in position 18[deg] 08' 05.79'' N,
065[deg] 16' 16.70'' W.
    (2) All waters of East Vieques, Vieques, Puerto Rico encompassed
within the following points: starting at Point 1 in position 18 07'
38.60'' N, 065[deg] 17' 45.95'' W; thence south to point 2 in position
18[deg] 07' 23.73'' N, 065[deg] 17' 58.34'' W; thence west to Point 3
in position 18[deg] 07' 18.77'' N, 065[deg] 18' 29.64'' W; thence north
to Point 4 in position 18[deg] 07' 34.47'' N, 065[deg] 18' 31.82'' W.
    (b) Regulations. (1) No person or vessel may anchor, dredge, or
trawl in the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, or a designated Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer. Those in the safety zones must comply with
all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
designated Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer.
    (2) No person or vessel may enter, transit or remain in the safety
zones during Unexploded Ordnance clearance operations, unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated
representative.
    (3) Vessels encountering emergencies, which require transit through
the safety zones, should contact the Coast Guard patrol craft or Duty
Officer on VHF Channel 16. In the event of an emergency, the Coast
Guard patrol craft may authorize a vessel to transit through the safety
zones with a Coast Guard designated escort.
    (4) The Captain of the Port and the Duty Officer at Sector San
Juan, Puerto Rico, can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Coast Guard Patrol Commander enforcing the safety zones can be
contacted on VHF-FM channels 16 and 22A.
    (5) Coast Guard Sector San Juan will notify the marine community of
periods during which these safety zones will be in effect by providing
notice to mariners in accordance with Sec.  165.7.
    (6) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
on-scene patrol personnel. On-scene patrol personnel include
commissioned, warrant, or petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Coast
Guard Auxiliary and local or state officials may be present to inform
vessel operators of the requirements of this section, and other
applicable laws.

    Dated: October 9, 2020.
J.E. Diaz,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Captain of the Port San Juan.
[FR Doc. 2020-22973 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16357-16358]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07887]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0209; FRL-9976-91-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule and Texas SO2 Trading Programs
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
and Texas SO2 Trading Programs (40 CFR part 97, subparts
AAAAA-FFFFF) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2391.05, OMB Control No. 2060-
0667) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through October 31, 2018. An Agency may not conduct
or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0209, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen VanSickle, Clean Air Markets
Division, Office of Air and Radiation, (6204M), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public
docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: EPA is renewing an ICR for the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) trading programs to allow for continued implementation of
the programs. The information collection requirements under all five
CSAPR trading programs are reflected in the existing ICR as most
recently revised in 2016. In 2017, Texas sources were removed from two
CSAPR trading programs and EPA promulgated the Texas SO2
Trading Program using the CSAPR trading programs as a model. This ICR
renewal reflects the 2017 termination of information collection
requirements for Texas sources under the two CSAPR trading programs and
the 2019 re-establishment of some of the same requirements for some of
the same sources under the Texas trading program. Most affected sources
under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs are also subject to the Acid
Rain Program (ARP). The information collection requirements under the
CSAPR and Texas trading programs, which consist primarily of
requirements to monitor and report emissions data in accordance with 40
CFR part 75, substantially overlap and are fully integrated with ARP
information collection requirements. The burden and costs of
overlapping requirements are accounted for in the ARP ICR (OMB Control
Number 2060-0258). This ICR accounts for information collection burden
and costs under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs that are
incremental to the burden and costs already accounted for in the ARP
ICR. All data received by EPA will be treated as public information.

    Form Numbers: Agent Notice of Delegation #5900-172, Certificate of
Representation #7610-1, General Account Form #7610-5, Allowance
Transfer Form #7610-6, Retired Unit Exemption #7610-20, Allowance
Deduction #7620-4.
    Respondents/affected entities: Industry respondents are stationary,
fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines serving electricity
generators subject to the CSAPR and Texas trading programs, as well as
non-source entities voluntarily participating in allowance trading
activities. Potential state respondents are states that can elect to
submit state-determined allowance allocations for sources located in
their states.
    Respondents' obligation to respond: Industry respondents: Voluntary
and mandatory (Sections 110(a) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act). State
respondents: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: EPA estimates that there are 1,028
industry respondents, including 978 affected sources and 50 non-source
entities participating in allowance trading activities, and 27
potential state respondents.
    Frequency of response: On occasion, quarterly, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 134,423 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $18,563,878 (per year); includes $8,207,545
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is decrease of 40,699 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due almost entirely to adjustments in
the estimated numbers of respondents and transactions and the time
required to complete certain activities. Changes in programs--i.e., the
removal of Texas units from two CSAPR trading programs and the start of
the Texas SO2 Trading Program--together are responsible for
approximately 574 hours of the overall decrease.

    Dated: April 3, 2018.
Reid P. Harvey,
Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2018-07887 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4686-4692]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0556; Product Identifier 2018-NM-015-AD; Amendment
39- 19555; AD 2019-03-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A318 series; Model A319 series; Model A320 series; and
Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
This AD was prompted by reports of multiple angle of attack (AoA) probe
blockages. This AD requires all elevator

aileron computer (ELAC) units to be upgraded with new software, or
replaced with upgraded units. We are issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 26, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 26,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0556.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0556; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A318
series; Model A319 series; Model A320 series; and Model A321-111, -112,
-131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on June 20, 2018 (83 FR 28555). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of multiple AoA probe blockages. The NPRM proposed
to require all ELAC units to be upgraded with new software, or replaced
with upgraded units.
    We are issuing this AD to address the blockage of AoA probes. This
condition, if not corrected, could lead to undue activation of the AoA
protection, reverting to manual control of the airplane, which, under
specific circumstances, could result in reduced control of the
airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0007R1, dated January 19, 2018 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318 series; Model
A319 series; Model A320 series; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported on multiple Angle of Attack (AoA)
probes blockages. Investigation results indicated the need for
improved AoA monitoring in order to detect cases of AoA probe
blockage.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to undue activation
of the AoA protection, reverting to manual control of the aeroplane,
which, under specific circumstances, could result in reduced control
of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed
several Elevator Aileron Computer (ELAC) standards, i.e. ELAC units
loaded with a specific software Part Number (P/N), and EASA issued
AD 2017-0008, retaining part of the requirements of EASA AD 2015-
0088R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-17-03, Amendment 39-18616
(81 FR 55358, August 19, 2016) (``AD 2016-17-03'')], which was
superseded, and requiring an upgrade of all ELAC units with ELAC L99
standard, which introduces improvements in the AoA probe monitoring
for Current Engine Option (CEO) aeroplanes, and also incorporates
flight control aspects for New Engine Option (NEO) aeroplanes.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that
clarification is necessary for the Parts Installation requirements,
and some typographical (P/N) errors were detected. This [EASA] AD is
revised accordingly.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0556.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. United Airlines had no
objection to the NPRM.

Request To Reduce the Compliance Time for Model A320 Airplanes

    Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), requested that
the compliance time for the Model A320 series airplanes be reduced from
36 to 24 months, the same as for the other models. ALPA contended that
36 months is not an appropriate compliance time for the A320 because
the severity of risk for the A320 is not less than for the other
models.
    We disagree with the request to reduce the compliance time for
Model A320 series airplanes. We concur with the compliance time
established by EASA, the state of design authority, which is based on
the overall risk to the fleet, including the severity of the failure
and the likelihood of the failure's occurrence. In conjunction with the
manufacturer, we have determined that the compliance time for each
airplane model will accommodate the time necessary to ensure the
availability of required parts and maintain an adequate level of
safety. However, if additional data are presented that would justify a
shorter compliance time, we may consider further rulemaking on this
issue. We have not changed this AD regarding this request.

Request To Modify Paragraphs (h)(3) and (j)(2)(iii) of the Proposed AD

    Airbus SAS requested that we modify paragraphs (h)(3) and
(j)(2)(iii) of the proposed AD to read: ``The data-loadable ELAC unit
is checked by two different means: by the line replaceable unit (LRU)
identification and either the label call up or the Alpha Call Up ELA 1
and ELA 2 (if available).'' We infer that this change was requested to
clarify the meaning of those paragraphs.
    We agree to clarify the specified paragraphs. We have changed
paragraphs (h)(3) and (j)(2)(iii) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Clarify Paragraph (h)(3) of the Proposed AD

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) asked whether paragraph (h)(3) of the
proposed AD, as written, actually requires two separate methods of
identification for the same unit. DAL explained that not all ELAC units
are labeled with the software load, that the labels were added later by
Thales, and that there is no guarantee they will be present on the LRU.
    We agree to clarify that there are two methods of checking the
data-loadable ELAC unit. As stated previously, we have revised
paragraph (h)(3) of this AD and paragraph (j)(2)(iii) of this AD to
make this more clear.

Request To Clarify Paragraphs (h) and (j)(2) of the Proposed AD

    Alaska Airlines asked whether the four conditions given in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) and (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(iv) of
the proposed AD apply only to the ``modification instructions approved
by an EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) (other than Airbus SAS's
EASA DOA),'' or also to the modification instructions approved by other
authorities, as mentioned earlier in the paragraph.
    We agree to clarify this aspect of the specified paragraphs. We
have revised the language regarding the applicability of the four
conditions given in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) and (j)(2)(i)
through (j)(2)(iv) of this AD to clarify that these paragraphs are
applicable only to the modification instructions that are part of an
FAA-accepted maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. We have
revised the language in paragraphs (h) and (j)(2) of this AD
accordingly.

Request To Address Onboard Data Loading of ELAC Units

    Alaska Airlines requested that we modify paragraph (j) of the
proposed AD to address onboard loading of ELAC units with later
software. Alaska Airlines also requested that we revise paragraphs
(j)(2) and (j)(4) of the proposed AD to specify that those paragraphs
are not applicable to onboard data loading, since they refer to
removing and re-installing the data-loadable ELAC units. We infer that
Alaska Airlines wants us to revise paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(2)(iv)
of the proposed AD because those paragraphs refer to the removal and
re-installation of the data-loadable ELAC units.
    We agree. We have modified paragraph (j) of this AD to include
onboard loading of ELAC software and revised paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and
(j)(2)(iv) of this AD as requested.

Request To Remove DOA Signature Requirement

    DAL requested that the DOA signature requirement be removed from
the proposed AD and that the previously established statement ``The
technical content of this document is approved under the authority of
Design Organization Approval No. EASA 21J.031'' used by the DOA in
Airbus SAS service bulletins be deemed sufficient. DAL observed that if
this document requires a signature, it is deviating from the previously
established standard and will generate unnecessary alternative method
of compliance (AMOC) requests from the administrator and/or unnecessary
revisions of service bulletins by the manufacturer. DAL also stated
that requiring a signature does not enhance or affect the safety of the
aircraft.
    We disagree with DAL's request to remove the DOA signature
requirement. The FAA specifies the DOA signature requirement in the
``contacting the manufacturer'' paragraph (such as paragraph (m)(2) of
this AD) because in the past some U.S. operators misinterpreted that
any document, including an email message, received from a manufacturer
or the manufacturer's customer support organization was considered DOA
approved. Under the EASA DOA system, the only documents officially
recognized as EASA-approved are those accompanied by the DOA-authorized
signature. For the purpose of compliance with the ``contacting the
manufacturer'' paragraph in FAA ADs, the FAA can only recognize the
documents approved by the FAA, or EASA, or those authorized to make an
EASA approval under the DOA system.
    We also disagree with the request to use the statement ``The
technical content of this document is approved under the authority of
Design Organization Approval No. EASA 21J.031.'' This statement only
recognizes that the service bulletin was originally approved under the
authority of the DOA system as approved by EASA, and does not provide
any process for an operator to receive other approved instructions from
either EASA or the authorized DOA as a means of compliance to the FAA
AD. The current ``contacting the manufacturer'' paragraph and the
requirement for the DOA-authorized signature actually results in fewer
AMOCs because of the FAA's recognition of both EASA and specific EASA
DOA approvals under the ``contacting the manufacturer'' paragraph in
this and other FAA ADs. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Paragraph (h)(1) of the Proposed AD

    DAL questioned the purpose of the condition stated in paragraph
(h)(1) of the proposed AD, i.e., that there should be no warning or
maintenance message before the ELAC unit is removed. DAL stated that if
an electronic centralized aircraft monitor (ECAM) has a maintenance
message or ECAM warning that is not airworthy, as a standard procedure
the aircraft will be repaired and put back in an airworthy condition
prior to return to service.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. The intent of the
condition stated in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD is to ensure that all
pre-existing conditions have been fixed before uploading new software
to an ELAC unit or installing a unit with updated software. We have not
changed this AD regarding this question.

Request To Clarify Whether Certain Steps Are Required for Compliance

    DAL questioned whether all of the steps in Airbus SAS Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) Tasks 27-93-34-000-001-A and 27-93-34-400-001-
A, such as accessing the access doors using an adjustable platform, are
required for compliance.
    We agree to clarify. The conditions in paragraphs (h)(2), (h)(4),
(j)(2)(ii), and (j)(2)(iv) of this AD specified that actions must be
done as specified in the AMM tasks. We did not intend the accessing and
closing instructions of the AMM tasks to be required for compliance. We
have revised paragraphs (h)(2), (h)(4), (j)(2)(ii), and (j)(2)(iv) of
this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1263, dated April 28,
2017; and Service Bulletin A320-27-1264, dated April 28, 2017. The
service information describes the software upgrade or replacement of
ELAC units. These documents are distinct because they apply to
different airplane configurations.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,250 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                      Labor cost                   Parts cost                   Cost per product            Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification....................  Up to 3 work-hours x $85  Up to $7,970..................  Up to $8,225.................  Up to $10,281,250.
                                   per hour = $255.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2019-03-03 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19555; Docket No. FAA-2018-0556;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-015-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 26, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2016-17-03, Amendment 39-18616 (81 FR 55358,
August 19, 2016) (``AD 2016-17-03'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N,
and -271N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of multiple angle of attack
(AoA) probe blockages. We are issuing this AD to address the
blockage of AoA probes. This condition, if not corrected, could lead
to undue activation of the AoA protection, reverting to manual
control of the airplane, which, under specific circumstances, could
result in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition of Affected Elevator Aileron Computer (ELAC) Units

    For the purposes of this AD, ELAC units having a part number (P/
N) listed in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD are
hereafter referred to as ``affected ELAC units'' in this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19FE19.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19FE19.015

(h) Required Actions

    For airplanes with ELAC unit part numbers listed in table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD: Within the applicable
compliance times defined in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD,
upgrade each ELAC unit by uploading L99 software part number (P/N)
3945129111 or by replacing the existing ELAC unit with an ELAC L99
P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> unit in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1263, dated April
28, 2017, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1264, dated April 28,
2017, as applicable; or in accordance with modification instructions
approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, or by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or by
Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); or in
accordance with modification instructions that are part of an FAA-
accepted maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, provided
the conditions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this
AD are met. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the
DOA-authorized signature.
    (1) Absence of electronic centralized aircraft monitor (ECAM)
warning or maintenance message related to ELAC, before the data-
loadable ELAC unit is removed and software is loaded.
    (2) The data-loadable ELAC unit is removed as specified in
Airbus SAS Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 27-93-34-000-001-
A. The access and closing instructions identified in AMM Task 27-93-
34-000-001-A are not required by this AD. Operators may perform
those actions in accordance with instructions that are part of an
FAA-accepted maintenance or inspection program, as applicable.
    (3) The data-loadable ELAC unit is checked by two different
means: by the line replaceable unit (LRU) identification and either
the label call-up or the Alpha Call-up ELA 1 and ELA 2 (if
available).
    (4) After the software is loaded, the data-loadable ELAC unit is
re-installed as specified in Airbus SAS AMM Task 27-93-34-400-001-A.
The access and closing instructions identified in AMM Task 27-93-34-
400-001-A are not required by this AD. Operators may perform those
actions in accordance with instructions that are part of an FAA-
accepted maintenance or inspection program, as applicable.
    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: Non-data-loadable ELAC L99
P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> units are fully interchangeable and mixable with
data-loadable ELAC L99 P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> units with L99 software P/N
3945129111 loaded.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19FE19.016

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    (1) For airplanes with ELAC units listed in table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD: After modification of an
airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, do not install any
affected ELAC unit on that airplane.
    (2) For airplanes with ELAC units not listed in table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD: From the effective date of
this AD, do not install any affected ELAC unit on that airplane.

(j) Installation or Onboard Loading of Later Software Versions

    Installation or onboard loading of an ELAC unit with a software
standard above L99 is equal to compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (h) of this AD, provided the conditions specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD are met.
    (1) The ELAC unit part number is approved by the Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus SAS's EASA DOA.
    (2) The installation is accomplished in accordance with
modification instructions approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, or by EASA, or by Airbus
SAS's EASA DOA; or in accordance with modification instructions that
are part of an FAA-accepted maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, provided the conditions in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through
(j)(2)(iv) of this AD are met.
    (i) Absence of ECAM warning or maintenance message related to
ELAC, before the data-loadable ELAC unit is removed and software is
loaded.
    (ii) The data-loadable ELAC unit is removed as specified in
Airbus SAS AMM Task 27-93-34-000-001-A. This does not apply to the
onboard loading of ELAC units. The access and closing instructions
identified in AMM Task 27-93-34-000-001-A are not required by this
AD. Operators may perform those actions in accordance with
instructions that are part of an FAA-accepted maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable.
    (iii) The data-loadable ELAC unit is checked by two different
means: by the LRU identification and either the label call-up or the
Alpha Call-up ELA 1 and ELA 2 (if available).
    (iv) After the software is loaded, the data-loadable ELAC unit
is re-installed as

specified in Airbus SAS AMM Task 27-93-34-400-001-A. This does not
apply to the onboard loading of ELAC units. The access and closing
instructions identified in AMM Task 27-93-34-400-001-A are not
required by this AD. Operators may perform those actions in
accordance with instructions that are part of an FAA-accepted
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable.

(k) Airplanes Not Affected by the Requirements of Paragraph (h) of This
AD

    (1) An airplane on which any modification (mod) specified in
paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(ii) of this AD was embodied in
production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (h) of
this AD, provided it is determined that no affected ELAC unit is
installed as of the effective date of this AD.
    (i) Airbus SAS mod 161843 (installation of data-loadable ELAC P/
N<PHONE_NUMBER> unit with L99 software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) or mod 159979
(installation of non-data-loadable ELAC L99 P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> unit).
    (ii) Airbus SAS mod 160577 (installation of data-loadable ELAC
P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> unit with L101 software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) or mod 162042
(installation of non-data-loadable ELAC L101 P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> unit).
    (2) An airplane that has been modified as specified in the
service information identified in paragraph (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii),
or (k)(2)(iii) of this AD is not affected by the requirements of
paragraph (h) of this AD, provided it is determined that no affected
ELAC unit is installed as of the effective date of this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1267, dated September 27,
2017 (installation of non-data-loadable ELAC L101 P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>
unit).
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1268, dated September 27,
2017 (installation of data-loadable ELAC P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> unit with
L101 software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> for A320 NEO).
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1269, dated September 27,
2017 (installation of data-loadable ELAC P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> unit with
L101 software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>).

(l) Terminating Action for AD 2016-17-03

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD
or complying with the provisions specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD terminates all requirements of AD 2016-17-03.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0007R1, dated January 19, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0556.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(4) of this AD.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1263, dated April 28, 2017.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1264, dated April 28, 2017.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on February 1, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-02558 Filed 2-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19339-19340]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07295]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69205; File No. SR-ICC-2013-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Publishing of ICC
Circular Related to Swap Data Repository Reporting

March 21, 2013.
    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 March 4, 2013, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by ICC. ICC filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \4\ thereunder so
that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    ICC proposes to publish ICC Circular 2013/005,\5\ titled Parts 45
and 43 SDR Reporting Requirements for Off-Facility CDS-Clearing Related
Swaps (Firm Trades), related to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission's (``CFTC'') Part 43 and Part 45 regulations (Swap Data
Repository Reporting) (``ICC Circular 2013/005'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Circular number may change based on any other sequentially
numbered ICC Circulars issued prior to the March 18, 2013 Circular
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 19, 2012, CFTC staff granted conditional No-Action
Relief (12-59) for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants that are
clearing members from reporting certain off-facility swaps (the ``No-
Action Relief''). Specifically, the No-Action Relief states that,
subject to certain conditions, the CFTC Division of Market Oversight
will not recommend that the CFTC take enforcement action against a
reporting counterparty (clearing member) for failure to comply with its
obligations to report swap data arising from swaps that have been
entered into pursuant to a Derivatives Clearing Organization's CDS
Settlement Price Process (``CDS Clearing-Related Swaps'').
    ICC's CDS settlement price process requires that clearing members
enter into ``firm trades'' in order to ensure that prices submitted by
clearing members are reliable and accurate. Clearing members face ICC
as their counterparty with respect to firm trades and firm trades are
automatically cleared. As a result, firm trades constitute CDS
Clearing-Related Swaps (``ICC CDS Clearing-Related Swaps''). ICC
currently reports all of its cleared swaps, including ICC CDS Clearing-
Related Swaps, to ICE Trade Vault LLC (``ICE Trade Vault''), a duly
registered SDR.
    As a condition to the No-Action Relief, clearing members and ICC
must agree, as evidenced by private agreement or pursuant to ICC's
Rules, that ICC shall fulfill all of the clearing member's obligations
with respect to reporting ICC CDS Clearing-Related Swaps pursuant to
Part 45. To satisfy this condition, ICC plans to issue ICC Circular
2013/005 establishing that ICC will continue to report ICC CDS
Clearing-Related Swaps to ICE Trade Vault thereby satisfying any
related reporting obligation of its clearing members pursuant to Part
45 until the expiration of the No-Action relief on June 30, 2013.
    In addition, ICC Circular 2013/005 is intended to satisfy any Part
43 reporting obligations of ICC's clearing members related to ICC CDS
Clearing-Related Swaps to the extent that any such reporting
obligations might exist. ICC will be responsible, in the capacity of a
third-party provider, for reporting required swap transaction and
pricing data in real-time to ICE Trade Vault on behalf of a clearing
member that is a Swap Dealer or Major Swap Participant. In the event
that any clearing member would like to ``opt out'' of this ICC Part 43
reporting service, the clearing member should notify ICC Client
Services at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B) and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed change is to publish ICC Circular 2013/
005 in order to satisfy a condition of the No-Action Relief. ICC plans
to publish ICC Circular 2013/005 establishing that ICC will continue to
report ICC CDS Clearing-Related Swaps to ICE Trade Vault thereby
satisfying any related reporting obligation of its clearing members
pursuant to Part 45 until the expiration of the No-Action relief on
June 30, 2013. In addition, ICC Circular 2013/005 is intended to
satisfy any Part 43 reporting obligations of ICC's clearing members
related to ICC CDS Clearing-Related Swaps to the extent that any such
reporting obligations might exist. Publishing ICC Circular 2013/005
does not require any changes to the ICC risk management framework. The
only change being submitted is publishing ICC Circular 2013/005.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \7\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions. ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular with Section
17A(b)(3)(F),\8\ because facilitating clearing members' reporting
obligations promotes the prompt and accurate settlement of securities
transactions and the safeguarding of securities and funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

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

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) \9\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \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)(i).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ICC-2013-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2013-02. 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 filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICC and on ICC's
Web site (https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/regulatory_filings/ICEClearCredit_030413.pdf).
    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-ICC-2013-02
and should be submitted on or before April 19, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07295 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P