[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 96 (Monday, May 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28647-28649]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0311; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-014-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models FA-200-160, FA-200-180, and FA-200-
180AO airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as
deterioration of brake performance due to seal defects caused by
deterioration due to age of the O-rings of the brake master cylinder.
We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., AEROSPACE COMPANY, 1-11 YOUNAN 1 CHOME
UTSUNOMIYA TOCHIGI, JAPAN 320-8564; telephone: +81-28-684-7253; fax:
+81-28-684-7260; email: none; Internet: http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/outline/section/aero.html. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0311; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0311;
Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-014-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), which is the aviation
authority for Japan, has issued AD No. TCD-8396-2014, dated April 21,
2014 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models FA-200-160, FA-200-
180, and FA-200-180AO airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing
airworthiness information originated by an aviation authority of
another country. The MCAI was issued based on reports of deterioration
of brake performance due to seal defects caused by deterioration due to
age of the O-rings of the brake master cylinder on the affected
airplanes, which could result in reduced or loss of control during
ground operations. The MCAI requires repetitive replacement of any O-
ring of the brake master cylinders. You may examine the MCAI on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2014-0311.

Relevant Service Information

    Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. has issued Service Bulletin No. 200-
016, dated April 17, 2014. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 3 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $255, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $10, for a cost of
$690 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2014-0311; Directorate
Identifier 2014-CE-014-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 3, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models FA-200-
160, FA-200-180, and

FA-200-180AO airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as deterioration of
brake performance due to seal defects caused by deterioration due to
age of the O-rings of the brake master cylinders. We are issuing
this proposed AD to prevent the deterioration of brake performance,
which could result in reduced or loss of control during ground
operations.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions required by
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:
    (1) As of the effective date of this AD, if the brake master
cylinder O-rings have accumulated more than 1,000 hours time-in-
service (TIS) or 5 years since the last replacement of any O-ring or
if the replacement date of any O-ring cannot be determined, within
50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or 1 year after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace any O-
ring following Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 200-
016, dated April 17, 2014.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, every time the brake
master cylinder is replaced, inspect the manufacture date on the
data tag of the brake master cylinder or the last replacement date
of any O-ring by referring to the airframe logbook.
    (3) During any inspection of the manufacture date of the brake
master cylinder or the last replacement date of any O-ring as
required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, if it is determined that
the O-rings have accumulated more than 5 years since the manufacture
date on the data tag of the brake master cylinder or the last
replacement date of the brake master cylinder O-rings, or if the
manufacture date on the data tag on the brake master cylinder and
the last replacement date of any brake master cylinder O-ring cannot
be determined, before further flight, replace all brake master
cylinder O-rings when installed on the airplane following Fuji Heavy
Industries Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 200-016, dated April 17, 2014.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) AD No. TCD-
8396-2014, dated April 21, 2014, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0311. For service
information related to this AD, contact Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.,
AEROSPACE COMPANY, 1-11 YOUNAN 1 CHOME UTSUNOMIYA TOCHIGI, JAPAN
320-8564; telephone: +81-28-684-7253; fax: +81-28-684-7260; email:
none; Internet: http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/outline/section/aero.html. You may review this referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 12, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-11476 Filed 5-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75920-75921]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26328]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No.: DOT-OST-2016-0203]

Advisory Committee on Automation in Transportation

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

ACTION: Notice--Correction to Establishment of the Advisory Committee
on Automation in Transportation (ACAT) and Solicitation of Nominations
for Membership.

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

SUMMARY: This notice corrects an October 20, 2016, Federal Register
notice that announced the establishment of, and solicited nominations
to serve on, the DOT's Advisory Committee on Automation in
Transportation. It also extends the deadline for nominations to serve
on the Committee.

DATES: The deadline for nominations for Committee members must be
received on or before November 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: All nomination materials should be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to the attention of John Augustine at (202)
366-0263, or mailed to John Augustine, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of the Secretary, Office of Policy, Room W84-
306, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Any person
needing accessibility accommodations should contact John Augustine at
(202) 366-0353.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Augustine, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of the Secretary, Office of Policy, Room W84-
306, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; phone (202) 366-
0353; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a Federal Register notice published on
October 20, 2016, the Department of Transportation solicited
nominations for membership to the Advisory Committee on Automation in
Transportation (ACAT). The ACAT shall undertake information gathering
activities, develop technical advice, and present recommendations to
the Secretary to further inform this policy, including--but not limited
to--aviation automated navigation systems technologies, unmanned
aircraft systems, automated and connected road and transit vehicle
technologies, enhanced freight movement technologies, railroad
automated technologies, and advanced technology deployment in surface
transportation environments. In particular, the ACAT will perform these
activities as they may relate to emerging or ``not-yet-conceived''
innovations to ensure DOT is prepared when disruptive technologies
emerge and can better manage long term evolution of training and
education, regulation, and safety oversight. The ACAT shall consider
these topics and areas of application as they alleviate or exacerbate
challenges to disabled and disadvantaged populations.
    In the prior notice, the Department of Transportation stated that
individuals already serving on a Federal advisory committee will be
ineligible for nomination. After further consideration, the Department
finds it appropriate to consider applicants already serving on a
Federal advisory committee. As a result, interested parties may self-
nominate or submit a nomination for a candidate who already serves on
another Federal advisory committee.
    Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Qualified
individuals can self-nominate or be nominated by any individual or
organization. To be considered for the ACAT, nominators should submit
the following information:
    (1) Name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone,
fax, and email address) of the individual requesting consideration;
    (2) A letter of support from a company, union, trade association,
academic or non-profit organization on letterhead containing a brief
description why the nominee should be considered for membership;
    (3) Short biography of nominee including professional and academic
credentials;
    (4) An affirmative statement that the nominee meets all Committee
eligibility requirements.
    Please do not send company, trade association, or organization
brochures or

any other information. Materials submitted should total two pages or
less. Should more information be needed, DOT staff will contact the
nominee, obtain information from the nominee's past affiliations, or
obtain information from publicly available sources, such as the
Internet.
    Nominations may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to the
attention of John Augustine at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to John
Augustine, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary
Office of Policy, Room W84-306, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington
DC, 20590. Nominations must be received before November 16, 2016.
Nominees selected for appointment to the Committee will be notified by
return email and by a letter of appointment.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2016.
Blair C. Anderson,
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-26328 Filed 10-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: August 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 149)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43212-43215]
[DOCID:fr03au07-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 3

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2003-0001; FRL-8449-9]
RIN 2025-AA07

Extension of Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule Deadline for
Authorized Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the Final Cross-Media Electronic
Reporting Rule (CROMERR) deadline for authorized programs (states,
tribes, or local governments) with existing electronic document
receiving systems to submit an application for EPA approval to revise
or modify their authorized programs. This action proposes to extend the
current October 13, 2007, deadline until October 13, 2008.
Additionally, in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register, EPA is making this revision as a direct final rule without a
prior proposed rule. If the Agency receives no relevant adverse
comment, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 4, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEI-2003-0001,by mail to CROMERR Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand
delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section
of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evi Huffer, Office of Environmental
Information (2823T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or David Schwarz, Office of Environmental Information (2823T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Does This Rule Do?

    This rule proposes to provide temporary regulatory relief to
states, tribes, and local governments with ``authorized programs'' as
defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec.  3.3. Any such
authorized program that operates an ``existing electronic document
receiving system'' as defined in 40 CFR 3.3 will have an additional
year to submit an application to revise or modify its authorized
program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 3. Specifically, this
rule proposes to amend 40 CFR 3.1000(a)(3) by extending the October 13,
2007, deadline to October 13, 2008.

II. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

    EPA proposes to extend the current due date for submitting
applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing
electronic document receiving systems, and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by the underlying final rule (70 FR
59848, October 13, 2007). EPA has published a direct final rule in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because EPA
views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse
comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble
to the direct final rule.
    If EPA receives no adverse comment, the Agency will not take
further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comment,
the Agency will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take
effect. EPA will address all relevant public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule.
    EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting on this proposed rule or the direct
final rule listed elsewhere in today's Federal Register must do so at
this time. For further information about commenting, please see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

III. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action will affect states, tribes, and local governments that
have an authorized program as defined in 40 CFR 3.3 and also have an
existing electronic document receiving system, as defined in 40 CFR
3.3. For purposes of this rulemaking, the term ``state'' includes the
District of Columbia and the United States territories, as specified in
the applicable statutes. That is, the term ``state'' includes the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern Marina
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, depending on
the statute.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                  Examples of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local government.............  Publicly owned treatment works, owners
                                and operators of treatment works
                                treating domestic sewage, local and
                                regional air boards, local and regional
                                waste management authorities, and
                                municipal and other drinking water
                                authorities.
Tribe and State governments..  States, tribes or territories that
                                administer any federal environmental
                                programs delegated, authorized, or
                                approved by EPA under Title 40 of the
                                CFR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

IV. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

V. Summary of Rule

    This proposed rule would amend 40 CFR 3.1000(a)(3) by extending the
current October 13, 2007 deadline for authorized programs with existing
electronic document receiving systems to submit applications to October
13, 2008.
    For additional discussion of the proposed rule change, see the
direct final rule EPA has published in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of today's Federal Register. This proposal incorporates by
reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the
direct final rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO. This proposed rule
merely extends the regulatory schedule for submitting applications
under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document
receiving systems. There are no costs associated with this rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any information collection burden. This
action merely extends the current due date for submitting applications
under CROMERR for authorized programs with existing electronic document
receiving systems, and imposes no additional requirements. However, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations (40 CFR part 3) under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2025-0003, EPA ICR number 2002.03. A copy of the OMB approved
Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby,
Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The ICR is also available electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any

other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the definition for small businesses based on SBA size standards
at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000 (Under the RFA definition, States
and tribal governments are not considered small governmental
jurisdictions.); and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the possibility of economic impacts of today's
proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule
are small governmental jurisdictions. In determining whether a rule has
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory
flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives
``which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small
entities.'' Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This proposed rule merely extends the current due date for
submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized programs with
existing electronic document receiving systems. EPA has therefore
concluded that today's action will relieve regulatory burden for all
affected small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on
issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, tribe, and local
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, tribe, and local governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribes, it must have developed under section 203
of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Today's rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, tribe, or local
governments or the private sector. This action merely extends the
current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for
authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving
systems, and imposes no additional requirements. EPA has determined
that this rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for states, tribes, and local
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Thus, today's action is not subject to the requirements in Sections 202
and 205 of UMRA.
    EPA has also determined that this action contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the UMRA, and thus this rule is not
subject to the requirements in Section 203 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely extends the
current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for
authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving
systems, and imposes no additional requirements. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
    EPA has concluded that this proposed rule does not have tribal
implications. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This action merely
extends the current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR
for authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving
systems, and imposes no additional requirements.

G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically

significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant action as defined by Executive
Order 12866 and it does not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This action merely extends
the current due date for submitting applications under CROMERR for
authorized programs with existing electronic document receiving
systems, and imposes no additional requirements.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    Today's action does not involve technical standards. EPA's
compliance with 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note))
has been addressed in the preamble of the underlying final rule [70 FR
59848, October 13, 2007].

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rule merely extends the current regulatory
schedule for submitting applications under CROMERR for authorized
programs with existing electronic document receiving systems.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 3

    Environmental protection, Conflict of interests, Electronic
records, Electronic reporting requirements, Electronic reports,
Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: July 26, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-15014 Filed 8-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19385-19388]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08203]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74655; File No. SR-C2-2015-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fees Schedule

April 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on April 1, 2015 C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed

rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective April
1, 2015. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Taker fees for complex
orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options
classes (except Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'')). Currently, for such
orders, the Exchange provides a rebate of $0.35 per contract for Public
Customers and assesses a fee of $0.45 per contract to C2 Market-Makers
as well as to orders from all other origins (Professional Customer,
Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker, JBO, etc.). The Exchange
proposes to eliminate the rebate for Public Customers and establish a
fee of $0.47 per contract for Public Customer Orders. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to increase the Taker fee amounts for all other
origins by $0.03, resulting in a fee of $0.48 per contract for all
other origins, including C2 Market-Makers. The Exchange notes that the
proposed Taker fee amounts are the same amounts currently assessed for
simple, non-complex orders in equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and
ETN options classes and are also in line with Taker fees assessed at
other Exchanges.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., C2 Fees Schedule, Section 1A (Transaction Fees
for Simple, Non-Complex Orders), and NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule,
which lists, for electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues, (1)
Customer Taker fee of $0.47, (2) Market Maker Taker fee of $0.49,
and (3) Firm and Broker Dealer Taker fee of $0.49; and for
electronic executions in non-Penny Pilot issues, (1) Customer Taker
fee of $0.85, (2) Market Maker Taker fee of $0.87, and (3) Firm and
Broker Taker fee of $0.89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Section 1A of the Fees Schedule, which sets forth fees
for simple, non-complex orders in all equity, multiply-listed index,
ETF and ETN options classes (other than RUT), includes an asterisk
attached to all Maker Rebates and denotes the following language:
``Rebates do not apply to orders that trade with Public Customer
complex orders. In such a circumstance there will be no rebate or
fee.'' The Exchange notes that it had adopted this language since
Public Customer Taker complex orders also receive a rebate and thus, if
the Exchange had offered the rebate when a Public Customer Maker simple
order trades with another Public Customer complex order, the Exchange
would be providing a rebate on both sides of the order (which would not
have been economically feasible or viable it would result in a net
negative for the Exchange). As such, no fee or rebate is applied in
these circumstances. Similarly, the Exchange notes that Section 1B of
the Fees Schedule, which sets forth fees for complex orders in all
equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (other than
RUT), includes an asterisk attached to Public Customer Rebates and
denotes the following language: ``The rebate will only apply to Public
Customer complex orders that trade with non-Public Customer complex
orders. In other circumstances, there will be no Maker or Taker fee or
rebate.'' Again the Exchange notes that Public Customers are currently
entitled to a rebate regardless of whether they were a Maker or a Taker
for complex orders and thus, if the Exchange offered the rebate when a
Public Customer complex order trades with another Public Customer
complex order, the Exchange would be providing a rebate on both sides
of the order. As noted above, it would not have been economically
feasible or viable to provide a rebate on an order that is trading with
an order that is not generating a fee and therefore, in these
circumstances, no fee or rebate is applied. However, in light of the
Exchange eliminating the Taker rebate for Public Customers complex
orders and replacing it with a fee, the Exchange will no longer be
providing a rebate on both sides of a transaction in instances in which
a simple, non-complex Maker order trades with a Public Customer complex
order or where a Public Customer Complex order trades with another
Public Customer complex order. Consequently, as the Exchange will only
be providing a rebate on one side of a transaction for these orders,
the Exchange believes that this exception is no longer necessary and
proposes to eliminate the asterisk and asterisked language from the
Fees Schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires
that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed increases to Taker fees for
complex orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN
options classes (except RUT) are reasonable because the proposed fee
amounts are equivalent to Taker fees for complex [sic] orders in all
equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (except
RUT).\8\ The Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate the Public
Customer rebate for Taker complex orders because Public Customer Taker
simple orders also do not offer a rebate. Additionally, other exchanges
also provide for a fee instead of a rebate for Public Customer Taker
orders.\9\ The

Exchange believes the proposed Public Customer Taker fee amount for
complex orders is reasonable because the proposed amount is equivalent
to the amount currently assessed for Public Customer Taker simple
orders on C2, as well as the amount assessed on another exchange for
Public Customer Taker orders.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See C2 Fees Schedule, Section 1A (Transaction Fees for
Simple, Non-Complex Orders)
    \9\ See NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule, which lists, for
electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues a Customer Taker fee of
$0.47 in non-Penny Pilot issues a Customer Taker fee of $0.85. See
also, NOM Price List, which lists fees for Customer orders that
remove liquidity in Penny Pilot options at $0.48 per contract and
non-Penny Pilot options at $0.85 per contract.
    \10\ See C2 Fees Schedule, Section 1A and NOM Price List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Public Customers as compared to
other market participants because Public Customer order flow enhances
liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants.
Specifically, Public Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market-Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Additionally, the proposed fee change applying to Public Customers will
be applied equally to all Public Customers.
    The Exchange believes that the differences between the Maker
rebates and fees and Taker fees for complex orders are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are intended to
cover the costs associated with operating the Exchange's trading
systems necessary to provide these trading opportunities.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Fees Schedule so that Maker
rebates will apply to all orders, including orders that trade with
Public Customer complex orders is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange no longer also provides a
rebate for Public Customer complex Taker orders, and thus it is no
longer the case that it is not economically feasible or viable to
provide a rebate in these circumstances. Similarly, the Exchange
believes that its proposal to remove the language that permitted the
Exchange to not provide a rebate for Public Customer complex orders
that trade with other Public Customer orders is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange again no longer
provides a rebate for Public Customer complex Taker orders, and thus it
is no longer the case that it is not economically feasible or viable to
provide a rebate in these circumstances. The Exchange also believes
this proposed rule change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all market-participants entitled to receive a
rebate when acting as a Maker in simple and complex orders when trading
against non-Public Customers will also receive the rebate when trading
with a Public Customer order.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any
burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because, while different fees and rebates are
assessed to different market participants in some circumstances, these
different market participants have different obligations and different
circumstances as discussed above. The Exchange believes this proposal
will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because
the Taker fee amounts for complex orders in all equity, multiply-listed
index, ETF and ETN options classes (except RUT) is similar to fees
assessed at other exchanges.\11\ To the extent that the proposed
changes make C2 a more attractive marketplace for market participants
at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become C2
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., See NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule, which lists,
for electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues, (1) Customer Taker
fee of $0.47, (2) Market-Maker Taker fee of $0.49, and (3) Firm and
Broker Dealer Taker fee of $0.49; and for electronic executions in
non-Penny Pilot issues, (1) Customer Taker fee of $0.85, (2) Market-
Maker Taker fee of $0.87, and (3) Firm and Broker Taker fee of
$0.89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange does not believe amending the Fees
Schedule so that all Maker rebates will apply to all orders (including
orders that trade with Public Customer complex orders) will impose any
burden on intramarket competition because all market-participants
entitled to receive a rebate when acting as a Maker when trading
against non-Public Customers will receive the rebate when trading with
a Public Customer order. The Exchange does not believe amending the
Fees Schedule so that all Maker rebates will apply to all orders
(including orders that trade with Public Customer complex orders) will
impose any burden on intermarket competition because it only applies to
trading on the Exchange and because to the extent the availability of
these rebates make C2 a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become C2 market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2015-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2015-005. 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 the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; 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-C2-
2015-005 and should be submitted on or before May 1, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08203 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P