[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16898-16903]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06292]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69132; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options

March 13, 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 1, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2 governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to
amend certain Penny Pilot Options \3\ Rebates to Add Liquidity and
certain Non-Penny Pilot Options \4\ Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and in October
2009 was expanded and extended through June 30, 2013. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR 18587 (April
4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); 60874 (October 23, 2009),
74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-091) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny
Pilot); 60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292 (November 17, 2009)
(SR-NASDAQ-2009-097) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61455 (February 1,
2010), 75 FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-013) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to
Penny Pilot); 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR-
NASDAQ-2010-053) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 65969 (December 15,
2011), 76 FR 79268 (December 21, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-169) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness extension and replacement of
Penny Pilot); 67325 (June 29, 2012), 77 FR 40127 (July 6, 2012) (SR-
NASDAQ-2012-075) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness and
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through December 31, 2012);
and 68519 (December 21, 2012), 78 FR 136 (January 2, 2013) (SR-
NASDAQ-2012-143) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness and
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through June 30, 2013). See
also NOM Rules, Chapter VI, Section 5.
    \4\ Non-Penny Pilot Pricing includes NDX. For transactions in
NDX, a surcharge of $0.10 per contract is added to the Fee for
Adding Liquidity and the Fee for Removing Liquidity in Non-Penny
Pilot Options, except for a Customer who will not be assessed a
surcharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2(1) governing the rebates and fees assessed for option
orders entered into NOM. The Exchange is proposing to amend the
Customer,\5\ Professional,\6\ Non-NOM Market Maker \7\ and NOM Market
Maker \8\ Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity and the NOM
Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48)).
    \6\ The term ``Professional'' or (``P'') means any person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant
to Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be
appropriately marked by Participants.
    \7\ The term ``Non-NOM Market Maker'' or (``O'') is a registered
market maker on another options exchange that is not a NOM Market
Maker. A Non-NOM Market Maker must append the proper Non-NOM Market
Maker designation to orders routed to NOM.
    \8\ The term ``NOM Market Maker'' or (``M'') is a Participant
that has registered as a Market Maker on NOM pursuant to Chapter
VII, Section 2, and must also remain in good standing pursuant to
Chapter VII, Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker pricing
in all securities, the Participant must be registered as a NOM
Market Maker in at least one security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to reduce the current Non-NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.25 to $0.10 per
contract in order that a Non-NOM Market Maker would be paid the same
rebates as a Firm \9\ and Broker-Dealer.\10\ The Exchange also proposes
to amend the Tier 6 Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity
in Penny Pilot Options and add a new Tier 7 rebate. Currently, the

Exchange offers Customers and Professionals a Rebate to Add Liquidity
if they qualify for a tier based on their monthly volume. The Exchange
has a six tier rebate structure as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction that
is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at
OCC.
    \10\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' or (``B'') applies to any
transaction which is not subject to any of the other transaction
fees applicable within a particular category.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Rebate to  add
                     Monthly volume                         liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Participant adds Customer and Professional                  $0.26
 liquidity of up to 24,999 contracts per day in a month
Tier 2 Participant adds Customer and Professional                   0.40
 liquidity of 25,000 to 34,999 contracts per day in a
 month.................................................
Tier 3 Participant adds Customer and Professional                   0.43
 liquidity of 35,000 to 74,999 contracts per day in a
 month.................................................
Tier 4 Participant adds Customer and Professional                   0.44
 liquidity of 75,000 or more contracts per day in a
 month.................................................
Tier 5 Participant adds (1) Customer and Professional               0.42
 liquidity of 25,000 or more contracts per day in a
 month, (2) the Participant has certified for the
 Investor Support Program set forth in Rule 7014; and
 (3) the Participant executed at least one order on
 NASDAQ's equity market................................
Tier 6 Participant has Total Volume of 130,000 or more              0.46
 contracts per day in a month..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 6 to qualify the current
requirement that a Participant with Total Volume of 130,000 or more
contacts per day in a month will receive a rebate of $0.46 per contract
to require that 25,000 or more of the Total Volume to qualify for Tier
6 must be Customer or Professional liquidity. In addition, the Exchange
also proposes to add a new Tier 7 which would pay an increased rebate
of $0.48 per contract if a Participant has Total Volume of 325,000 or
more contracts per day in a month, or (2) adds Customer and
Professional liquidity of 1.00% or more of national customer volume in
multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month \11\ or (3)
adds Customer and Professional liquidity of 60,000 or more contracts
per day in a month and NOM Market Maker liquidity of 30,000 or more per
day per month. Similar to Tier 6, the Exchange shall define Total
Volume as Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer, Non-NOM Market
Maker and NOM Market Maker volume in Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny
Pilot Options which either adds or removes liquidity on NOM.\12\ For
purposes of Tier 7, the Exchange would allow NOM Participants under
Common Ownership \13\ to aggregate their volume to qualify for the
rebate. The Exchange believes that the amendment to Tier 6 and the
addition of Tier 7 will incentivize Participants to transact additional
Customer and Professional volume. The addition of Tier 7 will also
incentivize Participants to post NOM Market Maker liquidity on NOM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The reference to national volume refers to volume on all
options markets. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') and the Chicago
Board Options Exchange Incorporated (``CBOE'') utilize a similar
national volume number to calculate rebates. Phlx pays customer
rebates based on relative contracts per month as a percentage of
total national customer volume in multiply-listed options transacted
on Phlx. See Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Section A. CBOE offers each
Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') a credit for each public customer
order transmitted by the TPH which is executed electronically in all
multiply-listed option classes, excluding QCC trades and executions
related to contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in
connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed
Market Plan, provided the TPH meets certain percentage thresholds in
a month as described in the Volume Incentive Program. See CBOE's
Fees Schedule.
    \12\ The Exchange is proposing to add the words ``on NOM'' to
the Total Volume definition solely to clarify that this volume
refers to transactions on the Exchange.
    \13\ Common ownership is defined in Chapter XV as Participants
under 75% common ownership or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.30 per contract to a four tier
rebate structure. The Exchange proposes to pay a Tier 1 rebate of $0.25
per contract for Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in
Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options of up to 39,999 contracts per
day in a month. The Exchange proposes to pay a Tier 2 rebate of $0.30
per contract for Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in
Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options of 40,000 to 89,999 contracts
per day in a month. The Exchange proposes to pay a Tier 3 rebate of
$0.32 per contract for Participants and its affiliates under Common
Ownership \14\ that qualify for the Tier 7 Customer and Professional
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange proposes
to pay a Tier 4 rebate of $0.32 \15\ or $0.38 per contract in the
following symbols, iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index (``EEM''), SPDR
Gold Shares (``GLD''), iShares Russell 2000 Index (``IWM''),
PowerShares QQQ (``QQQ''), SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY''), iPath S&P 500 VIX ST
Futures ETN (``VXX'') and Financial Select Sector SPDR (``XLF''), if
Participants add NOM Market Maker liquidity of 90,000 or more contracts
per day in a month. The Exchange believes that offering NOM Market
Makers the ability to obtain higher rebates will encourage NOM Market
Makers to post greater liquidity on NOM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See note 12.
    \15\ The Exchange would pay $0.32 per contract rebate for all
other qualifying Penny Pilot Options excluding EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ,
SPY, VXX and XLF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to increase the NOM Market Maker Non-
Penny Pilot Fee for Adding Liquidity from $0.25 to $0.35 per contract
and the Fee for Removing Liquidity from $0.82 to $0.85 per contract.
The Exchange proposes to increase these fees in order to offer NOM
Market Makers an opportunity to earn higher rebates in Penny Pilot
Options for transacting both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options.
    The Exchange also proposes technical amendments to capitalize the
term ``common ownership'' as that term is defined in Chapter XV and add
the words ``on NOM'' to the definition of Total Volume as described
herein.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\16\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that they provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which NASDAQ operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to reduce the Non-NOM
Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.25
to $0.10 per contract is reasonable because the Exchange proposes to
offer Non-NOM Market Makers the same rebate as Firms and Broker
Dealers. The Exchange believes that offering Customers, Professionals
and NOM Market Makers the opportunity to earn higher rebates is
reasonable because by incentivizing Participants to select the Exchange
as a venue to post Customer and Professional liquidity will attract
additional order flow to the benefit of all market participants and
incentivizing NOM Market Makers to

post liquidity will also benefit participants through increased order
interaction. Today, the Exchange assesses Non-NOM Market Makers, Firms
and Broker-Dealers the same fees for adding and removing liquidity in
all symbols. The Exchange is proposing to likewise pay these market
participants the same rebates.
    The Exchange believes that the amendments to the Penny Pilot
Options Rebates to Add Liquidity are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for various reasons. The Exchange believes that paying
Customers and Professionals a tiered Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options, as proposed herein, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as compared to other market participants. Pursuant to
this proposal, the Exchange would pay the highest Tier 1 Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of $0.26 per contract to Customers and
Professionals for transacting one qualifying contract as compared to
other market participants.\18\ The Exchange believes that Customers are
entitled to higher rebates because Customer order flow brings unique
benefits to the market through increased liquidity which benefits all
market participants. The Exchange believes that continuing to offer
Professional the same Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity as
Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange is offering Professionals the same rebates as today, with the
exception of Tier 6, which is being amended, and Tier 7, which is new.
The Exchange believes that offering Professionals the opportunity to
earn the same rebates as Customers, as is the case today, and higher
rebates as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-NOM Market Makers,
and in some cases NOM Market Makers, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange does not believe that the amount of
the rebate offered by the Exchange has a material impact on a
Participant's ability to execute orders in Penny Pilot Options. The
Exchange has been assessing the impact of rebates since it first began
to offer them and has also observed the impact of fees and rebates on
other options exchanges in terms of quoting and liquidity. The Exchange
believes that the Fees for Adding Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, as
compared to Rebates to Add Liquidity, impact a market participant's
decision-making more prominently with respect to posting order flow on
different venues and price. In modifying its rebates and offering
Professionals, as well as Customers, higher rebates, the Exchange hopes
to simply remain competitive with other venues so that it remains a
choice for market participants when posting orders and the result may
be additional Professional order flow for the Exchange, in addition to
increased Customer order flow. In addition, a Participant may not be
able to gauge the exact rebate tier it would qualify for until the end
of the month because Professional volume would be commingled with
Customer volume in calculating tier volume. A Professional could only
otherwise presume the Tier 1 rebate would be achieved in a month when
determining price. Further, the Exchange initially established
Professional pricing in order to ``* * * bring additional revenue to
the Exchange.'' \19\ The Exchange noted in the Professional Filing that
it believes ``* * * that the increased revenue from the proposal would
assist the Exchange to recoup fixed costs.'' \20\ The Exchange also
noted in that filing that it believes that establishing separate
pricing for a Professional, which ranges between that of a customer and
market maker, accomplishes this objective.\21\ The Exchange does not
believe that providing Professionals with the opportunity to obtain
higher rebates equivalent to that of a Customer creates a competitive
environment where Professionals would be necessarily advantaged on NOM
as compared to NOM Market Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers or Non-NOM
Market Makers. Also, a Professional is assessed the same fees as other
market participants, except Customers.\22\ For these reasons, the
Exchange believes that continuing to offer Professionals the same
rebates as Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
Finally, the Exchange believes that NOM Market Makers should be offered
the opportunity to earn higher rebates as compared to Non-NOM Market
Makers, Firms and Broker Dealers because NOM Market Makers add value
through continuous quoting \23\ and the commitment of capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The NOM Market Maker Tier 1 Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options would be $0.25 per contract pursuant to this
proposal and all [sic] other market participants would receive a
$0.10 per contract rebate.
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066)
(``Professional Filing''). In this filing, the Exchange addressed
the perceived favorable pricing of Professionals who were assessed
fees and paid rebates like a Customer prior to the filing. The
Exchange noted in that filing that a Professional, unlike a retail
Customer, has access to sophisticated trading systems that contain
functionality not available to retail Customers.
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066).
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066). The Exchange
noted in this filing that it believes the role of the retail
Customer in the marketplace is distinct from that of the
Professional and the Exchange's fee proposal at that time accounted
for this distinction by pricing each market participant according to
their roles and obligations.
    \22\ The Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is
$0.47 per contract for all market participants, except Customers.
Customers are assessed $0.45 per contract.
    \23\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a market maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on NOM for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the amended Tier 6 rebate and new Tier 7
Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange is offering Participants meaningful incentives to
increase their participation on NOM in terms of higher Penny Pilot
Options Rebates to Add Liquidity and fee reductions which reduce costs.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 6 Customer and Professional
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is reasonable because
the Exchange believes that requiring a certain amount of the Total
Volume to consist of Customer or Professional liquidity will continue
to attract liquidity to the Exchange to the benefit of all market
participants. The Exchange believes the amendment to the Tier 6
Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all
Participants may qualify for the rebate and such incentives will
benefit other market participants through the increased liquidity that
such Customer and Professional order flow will bring to the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Tier 7 Customer and
Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and pay an
increased rebate of $0.48 per contract to Participants that transact
Total Volume of 325,000 contracts or more per day, in a month, add
Customer and Professional liquidity of 1.00% or more of national
customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a
month or add Customer and Professional liquidity of 60,000 or more
contracts per day in a month and NOM Market Maker liquidity of 30,000
or more per day per month is reasonable,

equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes
that Participants will be incentivized to execute an even greater
number of orders on the Exchange, add a greater amount of Customer and
Professional liquidity on NOM and post a greater amount of NOM Market
Maker liquidity, which in turn benefits all market participants. The
Exchange believes the existing monthly volume thresholds have
incentivized Participants to increase Customer and Professional order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange desires to continue to encourage
Participants to route Customer and Professional orders, and post NOM
Market Maker orders, to the Exchange by offering increased Customer and
Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. All
Participants that transact Customer and Professional orders in Penny
Pilot Options are and will continue to be eligible for the Customer and
Professional rebates.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Pursuant to this proposal, Tier 1 pays a rebate of $0.26
per contract to Participants that add Customer and Professional
liquidity of up to 24,999 contracts per day in a month of Penny
Pilot Options. There is no required minimum volume of Customer and
Professional orders to qualify for the Customer or Professional
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to permit Participants to qualify for Tier
7 Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options by adding Customer and Professional liquidity of 1.00% or more
of national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options
classes in a month is reasonable because measuring Customer and
Professional liquidity as a percentage of national customer volume in
the industry relative to those contracts executed on NOM allows the
Exchange to control and account for changes in national industry-wide
multiply-listed options volume. Further, allowing Participants to
combine equity options volume with that of ETFs will provide
Participants an opportunity to qualify for this rebate tier. The
Exchange's proposal to permit Participants to qualify for Tier 7 by
adding Customer and Professional liquidity of 1.00% or more of national
customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a
month is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will be
applied to all Participants in a uniform matter. Any Participant is
eligible to receive the rebate provided they transact a qualifying
amount of electronic Customer and Professional volume as required. The
Exchange believes that permitting Participants to otherwise qualify for
Tier 7 by transacting Total Volume of 325,000 contracts or more per
day, in a month, or adding Customer and Professional liquidity of
60,000 or more contracts per day in a month and NOM Market Maker
liquidity of 30,000 or more per day per month is reasonable because the
Exchange already allows Participants to obtain rebates today based on
Total Volume and offering to allow Participants to qualify for Tier 7
by adding a certain mix of Customer, Professional and NOM Market Maker
liquidity provides Participants additional opportunities to obtain a
higher rebate and benefit other market participants by the liquidity
and order interaction that such order flow will bring to NOM. As stated
previously, the other means to qualify for Tier 7 (other than adding
Customer and Professional liquidity of 1.00% or more of national
customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a
month), transacting Total Volume of 325,000 contracts or more per day,
in a month, or adding Customer and Professional liquidity of 60,000 or
more contracts per day in a month and NOM Market Maker liquidity of
30,000 or more per day per month, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Participants may achieve this rebate by
transacting the appropriate level of volume required by Tier 7.
    The Exchange believes that the new NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot
Options Rebates to Add Liquidity tiers are reasonable because the
Exchange is offering NOM Market Makers the ability to obtain higher
rebates by posting liquidity on NOM. The Exchange proposes to pay NOM
Market Makers a Tier 1 Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.25 per contract in
Penny Pilot Options for adding up to 39,999 contracts per day in a
month of Penny or Non-Penny Pilot Options. While the Exchange is paying
Customers and Professionals higher rebates for adding Penny Pilot
Options Customer and Professional liquidity in Tiers 1 and 2 for volume
up to 39,999 contracts,\25\ the NOM Market Maker can achieve that
volume by aggregating Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options in order to
obtain a $0.25 per contract Tier 1 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and may be able to achieve the $0.30
per contract Tier 2 rebate, as is the case today, by adding Penny and
Non-Penny Pilot Options contract volume. The highest rebate a NOM
Market Maker can achieve with the proposed tier structure is $0.38 per
contract, which is higher than the current NOM Market Maker rebate of
$0.30 per contract and remains lower than the Customer and Professional
Tier 2 rebate, as is the case today. The Exchange believes that the
proposed NOM Market Maker rebate tier structure is reasonable because
the Exchange is incentivizing NOM Market Makers to earn higher rebates
by posting a greater number of contracts on NOM. NOM Market Makers are
valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace
and incur costs unlike other market participants. The Exchange believes
that encouraging NOM Market Makers to be more aggressive when posting
liquidity benefits all market participants through increased liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the NOM Market Maker rebate proposal is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it does not misalign
the current rebate structure because NOM Market Makers will continue to
earn higher rebates as compared to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and
Broker-Dealers and will continue to earn lower rebates as compared to
Customers and Professionals for most rebate tiers except as described
herein, a NOM Market Maker will earn a lower Tier 1 rebate as compared
to the current $0.30 rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Exchange pays $0.26 per contract for Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options liquidity up to 24,999 contracts
per day in a month (Tier 1), $0.40 per contract for Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options liquidity between 25,000 and 34,999
contracts per day in a month (Tier 2) and $0.43 per contract for
Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options liquidity between
35,000 to 74,999 contracts per day in a month (Tier 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the rebate tiers, the Exchange believes that the
tiers are reasonable because although Tier 1 pays a lower rebate of
$0.25 per contract as compared to today's NOM Market Maker rebate, as
mentioned herein, Participants may add NOM Market Maker liquidity in
either Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Options, up to 39,999 contracts
per day in a month, to obtain that rebate. Today, the Exchange
similarly allows Customers and Professionals to obtain rebates by
transacting Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer, Non-NOM Market
Maker or NOM Market Maker volume in Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny
Pilot Options which either adds or removes liquidity on NOM (known as
``Total Volume'') to qualify for a rebate. Likewise, the Exchange is
proposing that NOM Market Makers may qualify for Rebates to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options by transacting either Penny or Non-
Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that incentivizing NOM
Market Makers to post liquidity in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options in

order to obtain a rebate is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because participants will benefit through increased
order interaction and all NOM Market Makers have a similar opportunity
to obtain the rebate. As mentioned, the Exchange believes that NOM
Market Makers are provided an opportunity to qualify for a Tier 2
rebate, and obtain the same $0.30 per contract rebate as today, because
they can aggregate Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options volume. A
Participant that adds NOM Market Maker liquidity in either Penny Pilot
or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 40,000 to 89,999 contracts per day in a
month would achieve the same $0.30 per contract rebate as NOM Market
Makers receive today. The Exchange believes that these first two NOM
Market Maker rebate tiers are reasonable because NOM Market Makers will
be incentivized to be more aggressive in posting liquidity on NOM to
achieve higher rebates or the same rebate. The Exchange believes that
rebate Tiers 1 and 2 are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because all NOM Market Makers may qualify for the tiers and every NOM
Market Maker is entitled to a rebate solely by adding one contract of
NOM Market Maker liquidity on NOM. Also, as mentioned, the NOM Market
Maker would receive a higher rebate in Tier 1 as compared to a Firm,
Non-NOM Market Maker or Broker-Dealer because of the obligations borne
by NOM Market Makers as compared to other market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to pay a Tier 3 NOM Market Maker rebate of
$0.32 per contract for Participants and its affiliates under Common
Ownership that qualify for the Tier 7 Customer and Professional Rebate
to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is reasonable because as
mentioned herein, NOM Market Makers are valuable market participants
that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs unlike other
market participants. A NOM Market Maker has the obligation to make
continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with a course of dealings. Encouraging NOM Market Makers
to add greater liquidity benefits all Participants in the quality of
order interaction. By further incentivizing Participants to achieve the
Tier 7 Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity, the Exchange
is seeking to add a greater amount of Customer and Professional
liquidity to the marketplace which benefits all Participants as well as
reduce costs not only to Professionals and Customers in paying the Tier
7 Customer and Professional rebate, but also NOM Market Makers by
offering the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options. The Exchange's proposal to pay a Tier 3 rebate of $0.32
per contract for Participants and its affiliates under Common Ownership
that qualify for the Tier 7 Customer and Professional Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all NOM Market Makers may qualify for the Tier 3
NOM Market Maker rebate provided they are able to qualify for the Tier
7 Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options. As mentioned herein, there are various opportunities to
achieve a Tier 7 Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options.
    The Exchange's proposal to pay a Tier 4 NOM Market Maker rebate of
$0.32\26\ or $0.38 per contract in EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, SPY, VXX and XLF
if the Participant adds NOM Market Maker liquidity of 90,000 or more
contracts per day in a month is reasonable because the Exchange
believes that offering NOM Market Makers the ability to obtain higher
rebates will encourage additional order interaction. The Exchange's
proposal to pay a Tier 4 NOM Market Maker rebate of $0.32\27\ or $0.38
per contract in EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, SPY, VXX and XLF if the Participant
adds NOM Market Maker liquidity of 90,000 or more contracts per day in
a month is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all NOM
Market Makers may qualify for the Tier 4 NOM Market Maker rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange would pay $0.32 per contract rebate for all
other qualifying Penny Pilot Options excluding EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ,
SPY, VXX and XLF.
    \27\ The Exchange would pay $0.32 per contract rebate for all
other qualifying Penny Pilot Options excluding EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ,
SPY, VXX and XLF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory to adopt specific pricing for EEM, GLD, IWM,
QQQ, SPY, VXX and XLF because pricing by symbol is a common practice on
many U.S. options exchanges as a means to incentivize order flow to be
sent to an exchange for execution in the most actively traded options
classes, in this case actively traded Penny Pilot Options.\28\ The
Exchange notes that EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, SPY, VXX and XLF are some of
the most actively traded options in the U.S. The Exchange believes that
this pricing will incentivize members to transact options on EEM, GLD,
IWM, QQQ, SPY, VXX and XLF on NOM in order to obtain the higher $0.38
per contract rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Phlx's Pricing Schedule. See also the International
Securities Exchange LLC's Fee Schedule. Both of these markets
segment pricing by symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the NOM Market
Maker Non-Penny Pilot Fee for Adding Liquidity from $0.25 to $0.35 per
contract and the Fee for Removing Liquidity from $0.82 to $0.85 per
contract is reasonable because the Exchange desires to offer NOM Market
Makers the opportunity to earn higher rebates by transacting Penny and
Non-Penny Pilot Options, which order flow benefits other market
participants. These fees will assist the Exchange in offering such
rebates. The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the NOM
Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Fee for Adding Liquidity from $0.25 to
$0.35 per contract and the Fee for Removing Liquidity from $0.82 to
$0.85 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange would continue to assess lower fees to NOM Market Makers,
as compared to all other Participants except Customers,\29\ as is the
case today, because NOM Market Makers add value through continuous
quoting\30\ and the commitment of capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Customers do not pay Non-Penny Pilot Fees for Adding
Liquidity and today are assessed an $0.82 per contract Non-Penny
Pilot Fee for Removing Liquidity.
    \30\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a market maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on NOM for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Tier 3, the Exchange proposes to pay the $0.32 per
contract rebate to Participants or its affiliates under Common
Ownership that qualify for Tier 7. The Exchange proposes to allow
Participants to aggregate their volume with affiliates in order to
qualify for this Tier of the NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity
in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange also proposes to permit
Participants to allow NOM Participants under Common Ownership to
aggregate their volume to qualify for the rebate. The Exchange believes
that its proposal to permit Participants under Common Ownership to
aggregate their volume is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would permit all Participants

the ability to aggregate for purposes of the rebates if certain
Participants chose to operate under separate entities.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Customers have
traditionally been paid the highest rebates offered by options
exchanges. While the Exchange's proposal results in a Professional
receiving a higher rebate as compared to a NOM Market Maker, in certain
circumstances, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rebate tiers
would result in any burden on competition as between market
participants. The Exchange's proposal also aligns the Non-NOM Market
Maker Penny Pilot Rebate to Add Liquidity with that of a Firm and
Broker-Dealer. The Exchange's proposal to increase Non-Penny Pilot
Options Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity does not misalign the
current fees as NOM Market Makers will continue to be assessed lower
fees as compared to a Non-NOM Market Maker, Firm or Broker-Dealer
because of the additional obligations that are required of NOM Market
Makers as compared to these market participants. Customers continue to
pay a lower Fee for Removing Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options,
which is currently the case for most fees on NOM which are either not
assessed to a Customer or where a Customer is assessed the lowest fee
because of the liquidity such order flow brings to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that offering Customers and Professionals the
proposed tiered rebates creates competition among options exchanges
because the Exchange believes that the rebates may cause market
participants to select NOM as a venue to send Customer and Professional
order flow. The Exchange believes that incentivizing NOM Market Makers
to post liquidity on NOM benefits market participants through increased
order interaction.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of
eleven U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable
market participants can readily send order flow to competing exchanges
if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rebate structure and tiers are
competitive with rebates and tiers in place on other exchanges. The
Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace impacts the rebates
present on the Exchange today and substantially influences the
proposals set forth above.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\31\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2013-041 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-NASDAQ-2013-041. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-041, and should
be submitted on or before April 9, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06292 Filed 3-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84595-84596]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-3389]

Evaluation of the Beneficial Physiological Effects of Isolated or
Synthetic Non-Digestible Carbohydrates; Request for Scientific Data,
Information, and Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for scientific data, information, and comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is requesting
scientific data, information, and comments that would help us evaluate
the beneficial physiological effects to human health of isolated or
synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates that are added to foods. We are
requesting such scientific data, information, and comments to help us
determine whether a particular isolated or synthetic non-digestible
carbohydrate should be added to our definition of ``dietary fiber'' for
purposes of being declared as dietary fiber on a Nutrition Facts or
Supplement Facts label.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written scientific data,
information, and comments by January 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic scientific data, information, and comments in the
following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comments will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-N-3389 for ``Evaluation of the Beneficial Physiological
Effects of Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible Carbohydrates; Request
for Scientific Data, Information, and Comments.'' Received comments
will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your

comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two
copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be
confidential with a heading or cover note that states ``THIS DOCUMENT
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will review this copy,
including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of
comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential
information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing
and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the
Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and
contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and
you must identify this information as ``confidential.'' Any information
marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance
with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more
information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula R. Trumbo, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration,
5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA regulations did not define the term ``dietary fiber'' before
2016. In the Federal Register of May 27, 2016 (81 FR 33742), we
published a final rule amending our Nutrition and Supplement Facts
label regulation. The final rule, among other things, defines dietary
fiber as non-digestible soluble and insoluble carbohydrates (with three
or more monomeric units), and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in
plants; isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates (with three
or more monomeric units) determined by FDA to have physiological
effects that are beneficial to human health (21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(i)).
The final rule also identifies seven isolated or synthetic non-
digestible carbohydrates that we determined to have beneficial effects
for human health when added to foods (Sec.  101.9(c)(6)(i)). The seven
isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates are: [beta]-glucan
soluble fiber (as described in 21 CFR 101.81(c)(2)(ii)); psyllium husk
(as described in Sec.  101.81(c)(2)(ii)); cellulose, guar gum, pectin,
locust bean gum; and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Foods and dietary
supplements that contain any of these seven isolated or synthetic non-
digestible carbohydrates must include the amounts of these dietary
fibers in a serving of food in the dietary fiber declarations on the
products' Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels.
    Interested parties can ask us to list additional isolated or
synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates in the definition of dietary
fiber in Sec.  101.9(c)(6)(i) if we determine that the new isolated or
synthetic non-digestible carbohydrate meets our dietary fiber
definition. For example, a manufacturer who wants FDA to amend the
definition of dietary fiber to include another added non-digestible
carbohydrate could submit a citizen petition under 21 CFR 10.30.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we have published a
notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance document
entitled, ``Scientific Evaluation of the Evidence on the Beneficial
Physiological Effects of Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible
Carbohydrates Submitted as a Citizen Petition (21 CFR 10.30): Guidance
for Industry.'' The draft guidance describes the type of evidence and
the scientific evaluation process we plan to use in determining the
strength of the evidence for the relationship between an isolated or
synthetic non-digestible carbohydrate that is added to food and a
physiological effect that is beneficial to human health.
    In addition to issuing the draft guidance and determining that the
seven isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates identified in
the final rule's definition of dietary fibers have physiological
effects that are beneficial to human health, we have conducted a
scientific literature review of clinical studies associated with 26
isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates, such as gum acacia,
carboxymethyl cellulose, inulin, polydextrose, and xanthan gum, that
are not listed as a dietary fiber in Sec.  101.9(c)(6)(i). Our review
is consistent with the factors we provide in the draft guidance
entitled, ``Scientific Evaluation of the Evidence on the Beneficial
Physiological Effects of Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible
Carbohydrates Submitted as a Citizen Petition (Sec.  10.30); Guidance
for Industry'' to evaluate whether the available scientific evidence is
sufficient to support a physiological effect that is beneficial to
human health, based on the factors set forth in the draft guidance. We
have summarized the clinical studies that we have identified for these
26 non-digestible carbohydrates and have provided summaries of the
studies and related references in a document entitled ``Evaluation of
the Beneficial Physiological Effects of Isolated or Synthetic Non-
Digestible Carbohydrates.'' The purpose of this Federal Register notice
is to invite interested parties to submit additional scientific data,
information, and comments regarding:
     The physiological endpoints that we have addressed in the
science review for each of the 26 non-digestible carbohydrates, and
     Other beneficial physiological endpoints and the relevant
scientific data for a particular fiber. We have identified the main
endpoints, such as cholesterol or glucose levels, but ask for
scientific data on additional physiological endpoints (blood pressure)
for which a non-digestible carbohydrate may have a beneficial
physiological effect.

II. Reference

    The following reference is on display at the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the Web site address, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

1. FDA, 2016. ``Evaluation of the Beneficial Physiological Effects
of Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible Carbohydrates.'' Available
at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm525656.htm.

    Dated: November 14, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-27950 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18841-18843]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08234]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 77 / Monday, April 24, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0381; Special Conditions No. 23-280-SC]

Special Conditions: Viking Air, Ltd., Models DHC-6-100/-200/-300;
Avmax Aviation Services, Inc., Installation of Rechargeable Lithium
Batteries

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Viking Air, Ltd.,
models DHC-6-100/-200/-300, Twin Otter, Turbopropeller airplanes. This
airplane, as modified by Avmax Aviation Services, Inc., will have a
novel or unusual design feature associated with the use of a
replacement option of a lithium battery instead of nickel-cadmium and
lead-acid rechargeable batteries. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is April 24,
2017.
    We must receive your comments by June 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0381
using any of the following methods:
    [square] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
    [square] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [square] Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [square] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Hirt, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane
Directorate, ACE-114, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO; telephone
(816) 329-4108; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because
these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval
design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the FAA
has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3),
that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are
unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
issuance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/39B156C006EB842E86257EF3004BB13C?OpenDocument&Highlight=installation%20of%20rechargeable%20lithium%20battery.
    \2\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/902232309C19F0D4862575CB0045AC0D?OpenDocument&Highlight=installation%20of%20rechargeable%20lithium%20battery.
    \3\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/28E630294DCC27B986257513005968A3?OpenDocument&Highlight=installation%20of%20rechargeable%20lithium%20battery.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Special conditions No.               Company/airplane model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-15-01-SC \1\...........................  Kestrel Aircraft Company/
                                             Model K-350.
23-09-02SC \2\............................  Cessna Aircraft Company/
                                             Model 525C (CJ4).
23-08-05-SC \3\...........................  Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC/
                                             Model 40.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On January 18, 2016, Avmax Aviation Services, Inc., (Avmax) applied
for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to install a rechargeable
lithium battery on the Viking Air, Ltd. (Viking Air), models DHC-6-100/
-200/-300, Twin Otter, Turbopropeller airplanes. These are normal
category airplanes, powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-20
engines (-100 and -200) or two PT6A-27 engines (-300). The maximum
takeoff weight is 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) for the -300, but lesser for
the -100 and -200.
    The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not
contain adequate requirements for use of

rechargeable lithium batteries in airborne applications. This type of
battery possesses certain failure and operational characteristics with
maintenance requirements that differ significantly from that of the
nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) and lead-acid rechargeable batteries currently
approved in other normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category
airplanes. Therefore, the FAA is proposing this special condition to
address (1) all characteristics of the rechargeable lithium batteries
and their installation that could affect safe operation of the modified
models DHC-6-100/-200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes, and (2)
appropriate Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) that include
maintenance requirements to ensure the availability of electrical power
from the batteries when needed.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Sec.  21.101, Avmax must show that the
models DHC-6-100/-200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes, as changed,
continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations
incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A9EA \4\
or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for
the change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/AB4F5DD989BB1B4E86257FF100542804?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., Civil Air Regulations [CAR] 3) do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for the models DHC-6-100/-200/
-300 Turbopropeller airplanes because of a novel or unusual design
feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of
Sec.  21.16.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under
Sec.  21.101.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the models for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for an STC to modify any
other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the
same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would
also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Viking Air models DHC-6-100/ -200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes
will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
    The installation of a rechargeable lithium battery as a main or
engine start aircraft battery.

Discussion

    The applicable regulations governing the installation of batteries
in general aviation airplanes were derived from CAR 3 as part of the
recodification that established 14 CFR part 23. The battery
requirements identified in Sec.  23.1353 were a rewording of the CAR
requirements. Additional rulemaking activities, as a result of
increased incidents of Ni-Cd battery fire or failures, incorporated
Sec.  23.1353(f) and (g) at amendments 23-20 and 23-21 respectively.
However, the regulation prescribed was not for lithium battery
installations.
    The proposed use of rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA
to review the adequacy of these existing regulations. We found that the
existing regulations do not adequately address the safety of lithium
battery installations.
    Current experience with rechargeable lithium batteries in
commercial or general aviation is limited. However, other users of this
technology, ranging from personal computers, to wireless telephone
manufacturers, to the electric vehicle industry, have noted safety
problems with rechargeable lithium batteries. These problems include
overcharging, over-discharging, flammability of cell components, cell
internal defects, and those resulting from exposure to extreme
temperatures that are described in the following paragraphs.
    1. Overcharging: In general, rechargeable lithium batteries are
significantly more susceptible than their Ni-Cd or lead-acid
counterparts to thermal runway, which is an internal failure that can
result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure. This
is especially true for overcharging which causes heating and
destabilization of the components of the cell, leading to the formation
(by plating) of highly unstable metallic lithium. The metallic lithium
can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion. Finally,
the severity of thermal runaway due to overcharging increases with
increasing battery capacity due to the higher amount of electrolyte in
large batteries.
    2. Over-discharging: Discharge of some types of rechargeable
lithium battery cells beyond the manufacturer's recommended
specification can cause corrosion of the electrodes of the cell,
resulting in loss of battery capacity that cannot be reversed by
recharging. This loss of capacity may not be detected by the simple
voltage measurements commonly available to flight crews as a means of
checking battery status--a problem shared with Ni-Cd batteries. In
addition, over-discharging has the potential to lead to an unsafe
condition (creation of dendrites that could result in internal short
circuit during the recharging cycle).
    3. Flammability of Cell Components: Unlike Ni-Cd and lead-acid
batteries, some types of rechargeable lithium batteries use liquid
electrolytes that are flammable. The electrolyte can serve as a source
of fuel for an external fire, if there is a breach of the battery
container.
    4. Cell Internal Defects: The rechargeable lithium batteries and
rechargeable battery systems have a history of undetected cell internal
defects. These defects may or may not be detected during normal
operational evaluation, test and validation. This may lead to an unsafe
condition during in service operation.
    5. Extreme Temperatures: Exposure to an extreme temperature
environment has the potential to create major hazards. Care must be
taken to ensure that the lithium battery remains within the
manufacturer's recommended specification.

Applicability

    The special conditions are applicable to the models DHC-6-100/-200/
-300 Turbopropeller airplanes. Should Avmax apply at a later date for
an STC to modify any other model included on the same type certificate
to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the models DHC-6-100/-200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes. It is not a
rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who
applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the subject contained herein. Therefore, notice and opportunity
for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary and the FAA finds good
cause, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), making
these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting
comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have
been submitted in response to the

prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and
21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Viking Air, Ltd., models DHC-6-100/-
200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes modified by Avmax Aviation Services,
Ltd.

1. Installation of Lithium Battery

    The FAA adopts that the following special conditions be applied to
lithium battery installations on the models DHC-6-100/-200/-300
Turbopropeller airplanes in lieu of the requirements Sec.
23.1353(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), amendment 49.
    Lithium battery installations on the models DHC-6-100/-200/-300
Turbopropeller airplanes must be designed and installed as follows:
    (1) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained
during--
    i. Normal operations;
    ii. Any probable failure conditions of charging or discharging or
battery monitoring system; and
    iii. Any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not
shown to be extremely remote.
    (2) The rechargeable lithium battery installation must be designed
to preclude explosion or fire in the event of 1(1)(ii) and 1(1)(iii)
failures.
    (3) Design of the rechargeable lithium batteries must preclude the
occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or
pressure.
    (4) No explosive or toxic gasses emitted by any rechargeable
lithium battery in normal operation or as the result of any failure of
the battery charging system, monitoring system, or battery installation
which is not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous
quantities within the airplane.
    (5) Installations of rechargeable lithium batteries must meet the
requirements of Sec.  23.863(a) through (d) at amendment 23-34.
    (6) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any
rechargeable lithium battery may damage surrounding structure or any
adjacent systems, equipment, electrical wiring, or the airplane in such
a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in
accordance with Sec.  23.1309 at amendment 23-49 and applicable
regulatory guidance.
    (7) Each rechargeable lithium battery installation must have
provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential
systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery
can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual
cells.
    (8) Rechargeable lithium battery installations must have--
    i. A system to automatically control the charging rate of the
battery to prevent battery overheating and overcharging; and either
    ii. A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning
system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from
its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
    iii. A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for
automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the
event of battery failure.
    (9) Any rechargeable lithium battery installation, the function of
which is required for safe operation of the aircraft, must incorporate
a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the
appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state of charge of the
batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch
(see note 1) of the aircraft.

    Note 1: Reference Sec.  23.1353(h) for dispatch consideration.

    (10) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) required by
Sec.  23.1529 must contain maintenance requirements (see note 2) to
assure that the battery has been sufficiently charged (see note 3) at
appropriate intervals specified by the battery manufacturer and the
equipment manufacturer that contain the rechargeable lithium battery or
rechargeable lithium battery system. The lithium rechargeable batteries
and lithium rechargeable battery systems must not degrade below
specified ampere-hour levels sufficient to power the aircraft system.
The ICA must also contain procedures for the maintenance of replacement
batteries (see note 4) to prevent the installation of batteries that
have degraded charge retention ability or other damage due to prolonged
storage at a low state of charge. Replacement batteries must be of the
same manufacturer and part number as approved by the FAA.

    Note 2: Maintenance requirements include procedures that--

    (a) Check battery capacity, charge degradation at manufacturers
recommended inspection intervals.
    (b) Replace batteries at manufacturers recommended replacement
schedule/time to prevent age related degradation.

    Note 3: The term ``sufficiently charged'' means that the battery
must retain enough charge, expressed in ampere-hours, to ensure that
the battery cells will not be damaged.

    A battery cell may be damaged by low charge (i.e., below certain
level), resulting in a reduction in the ability to charge and retain a
full charge. This reduction would be greater than the reduction that
may result from normal operational degradation.

    Note 4: Replacement battery in spares storage may be subject to
prolonged storage at a low state of charge.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on April 18, 2017.
Mel Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-08234 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 61449]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24937]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, October
11, 2012 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
October 11, 2012 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 4, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24937 Filed 10-4-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61657]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19238]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98264; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-042]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the
WisdomTree Bitcoin Trust Under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based
Trust Shares

August 31, 2023.
    On June 30, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade shares of the WisdomTree Bitcoin Trust under BZX Rule
14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares. On July 11, 2023, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1, which amended and replaced the proposed
rule change in its entirety. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
July 19, 2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97904 (July 13,
2023), 88 FR 46207. Comments on the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2023-042/srcboebzx2023042.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is September 2, 2023. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues
raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates October 17, 2023, as the date by
which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-042), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19238 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2986-2987]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12514-056]

Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Notice of Application
for Temporary Variance of License Article 403 and Soliciting Comments,
Motions to Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Extension of temporary variance of license
article 403.
    b. Project No: 12514-056.
    c. Date Filed: November 28, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Northern Indiana Public Service Company (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Norway-Oakdale Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Norway-Oakdale Project is located on the
Tippecanoe River near the town of Monticello, in Carroll and White
counties, Indiana. The project consists of the upper Norway development
and the lower Oakdale development each of which has a dam and
powerhouse.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Justin Darling, Hydro Supervisor--
Chemical and Environmental Compliance, Northern Indiana Public Service
Company, 1414 W. Broadway, Monticello, IN 47960,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Robert Ballantine at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: February 8, 2013.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project number (P-12514) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: Northern Indiana Public Service Company,
licensee for the Norway-Oakdale Hydroelectric Project, requests the
Commission to grant an extension of time to a temporary variance of
license Article 403 that was granted by the Commission on October 4,
2012, due to continued regional drought conditions. In that order, the
Commission granted a temporary variance of license article 403 until
December 31, 2012. Article 403, in part, requires the licensee to
operate the project in a run-of-river manner where, project outflow is
equal to project inflow and to maintain lake elevations of Lake Shafer
within 0.25 feet of elevation 647.47 feet National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) and Lake Freeman within 0.25 feet of
elevation 612.45 NGVD. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Indiana Department of Natural Resources have requested that the
licensee release a minimum flow of 200 cubic feet per second (cfs) from
the Oakdale Dam for the preservation of federally endangered mussel
species which inhabit the Tippecanoe River downstream of the project
reservoirs. Due to the potential continuation of regional drought
conditions affecting the project watershed, the release of 200 cfs
downstream of the project, at times, may not be equal to project inflow
and therefore may result in the lake elevations decreasing below 0.25
feet NGVD as permitted by Article 403 of the project license. The
licensee is requesting that the temporary variance be extended to
December 1, 2013.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's 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. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<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.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS''; ``PROTESTS'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (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, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the

requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
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. 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.

    Dated: January 9, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00642 Filed 1-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, March 26, 2021 4:06 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Allen Dittenhoefer'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Woody, Matthew'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Owen, Chris'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
'Jeff Knight'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mary Kaplan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Paine, Bob'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'RON MC COLLUM'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Jack Garzella'<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Subject:
RE: EPA Follow-up to Technical Documentation on Buoyancy Parameters and BLp Plume Heights

Hi, Donna Lee.

On December 11, 2020, EPA requested that the COETF provide EPA with a heat mass balance analysis for an example coke production facility (USS-Clairton) and other supporting information for the heat fluxes and predicted plume heights that the COETF had previously submitted to EPA.  A copy of your December 11 email is below and attached (see "Coke BLP approach followup-EPA-12-11-20.docx").

The COETF is providing the attached F' "White Paper" in response to EPA's request (see "COETF F' White Paper 032621.pdf").  The White Paper provides the requested heat mass balance analysis, as well as other information supporting the heat fluxes and predicted plume heights that are recommended by the COETF.

The COETF believes that the F' values and predicted median plume heights we are providing are the most realistic representation to simulate buoyant coke battery emissions in EPA's dispersion modeling.  The White Paper was prepared for the COETF by Dr. Al Dittenhoefer; Ms. Mary Kaplan; Mr. Bob Paine; and, Mr. Ron McCollum and Mr. Jack Garzella of J.G. JR. Consulting and Assoc.; with advisory review and input by Mr. Ted Palma.  By separate email, Mary Kaplan will be sending copies of the references in the White Paper that are not readily available on the web and the HEM4 spreadsheets that contain the COETF's recommended battery inputs.

We would like to arrange a call/meeting with you and your project team to discuss these submissions and to identify any outstanding questions or issues.  In the meantime, please contact me if you have any questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

<< Coke BLP approach followup-EPA-12-11-20.docx >>
<< COETF F' White Paper 032621.pdf >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:53 PM
To: Allen Dittenhoefer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Palma, Ted<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Woody, Matthew<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Jeff Knight<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: EPA Follow-up to Technical Documentation on Buoyancy Parameters and BLp Plume Heights

Our response is attached. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 35284]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2013-M-0036, FDA-2013-M-0205, FDA-2013-M-0255, FDA-
2013-M-0281, FDA-2013-M-0282, and FDA-2013-M-0343]

Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness
Summaries for Premarket Approval Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of
premarket approval applications (PMAs) that have been approved. This
list is intended to inform the public of the availability of safety and
effectiveness summaries of approved PMAs through the Internet and the
Agency's Division of Dockets Management.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for copies of summaries of safety
and effectiveness data to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852. Please cite the appropriate docket number as listed in table
1 of this document when submitting a written request. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
summaries of safety and effectiveness.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Wolanski, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1650, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In accordance with sections 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and
(e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing
approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to
request review of the order under section 515(g) of the FD&C Act. The
30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under
Sec.  10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a
PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the Internet. Section
10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day
period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA
may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period
will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its
decision.
    The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of
available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and
denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a
list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness
were placed on the Internet from January 1, 2013, through March 31,
2013. There were no denial actions during this period. The list
provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the
trade name, and the approval date.

   Table 1--List of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Approved PMAs Made Available From January 1, 2013,
                                             Through March 31, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        PMA No., docket No.               Applicant              Trade name                Approval date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P110014, FDA-2013-M-0036..........  Dune Medical Devices,  MarginProbe System...  December 27, 2012.
                                     Inc.
H110002, FDA-2013-M-0205..........  Second Sight Medical   ArgusTM II Retinal     February 13, 2013.
                                     Products, Inc.         Prosthesis System.
P110032, FDA-2013-M-0282..........  Lombard Medical......  Aorfix AAA Flexible    February 14, 2013.
                                                            Stent Graft System.
P040046, FDA-2013-M-0255..........  Allergan.............  Natrelle[supreg] 410   February 20, 2013.
                                                            Highly Cohesive
                                                            Anatomically Shaped
                                                            Silicone-Filled
                                                            Breast Implants.
P110013/S005, FDA-2013-M-0343.....  Medtronic Vascular,    Resolute Integrity     February 22, 2013.
                                     Inc.                   Zotarolimus-Eluting
                                                            Coronary Stent
                                                            System.
P100030, FDA-2013-M-0281..........  Tenaxis Medical, Inc.  ArterX Surgical        March 1, 2013.
                                                            Sealant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/PMAApprovals/default.htm.

    Dated: June 7, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-13905 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P