[Federal Register: October 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 55836-55838]
[DOCID:fr01oc07-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-27978; 812-13394]

Citi Investor Services, Inc. f/n/a The BISYS Group, Inc., et al.;
Notice of Application and Temporary Order

September 24, 2007.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order
under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

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

Summary of Application: Applicants have received a temporary order
exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act, with respect to an
injunction entered against Citi Investor Services, Inc. f/n/a The BISYS
Group, Inc. (``BISYS'') on July 27, 2007 by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the ``Injunction''), until
the Commission takes final action on an application for a permanent
order. Applicants have requested a permanent order.

Applicants: BISYS, Heartland Investor Services, LLC, Mercantile
Investment Services, Inc., ProFunds Distributors, Inc. and Victory
Capital Advisers, Inc. (collectively, other than BISYS, the ``BISYS
Underwriter Applicants,'' and, together with BISYS, the ``BISYS
Applicants''); Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (``CGMI''), CEFOF GP I
Corp. (``CEFOF''), CELFOF GP Corp. (``CELFOF''), Citibank, N.A.
(``Citibank''), Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC (``Citigroup
Alternative''), Citigroup Investment Advisory Services Inc.
(``Citigroup Advisory''), SSBCP GP I Corp. (``SSBCP''), and SSBPIF GP
Corp. (``SSBPIF'', and, together with CGMI, CEFOF, CELFOF, Citibank,
Citigroup Alternative, Citigroup Advisory, and SSBCP, the ``Citigroup
Applicants,'' and together with the BISYS Applicants, the
``Applicants'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that any relief granted pursuant to the
application also apply to any other company of which BISYS is or
hereafter may become an affiliated person in the future (together
with the Applicants, the ``Covered Persons'').

Filing Date: The application was filed on June 6, 2007 and amended on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 13, 2007 and September 20, 2007.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on October 19, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, BISYS, 105
Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, New Jersey 07068, the BISYS Underwriter
Applicants, 100 Summer Street, 15th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts,
02110, CGMI, 787 Seventh Ave., 32nd Floor, New York, New York 10019,
CEFOF and CELFOF, 388 Greenwich Street, New York, New York 10013,
Citibank, 153 East 53rd Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10043,
Citigroup Alternative, 731 Lexington Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, NY
10022, Citigroup Advisory, 787 Seventh Ave., 15th Floor, New York, New
York 10019, SSBCP and SSBPIF, 338 Greenwich Street, New York, New York
10013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Conaty, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6827, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6821, (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a temporary order and a
summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained
for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. BISYS, a Delaware corporation, directly and through wholly-owned
subsidiaries, provides products and support services to financial
institutions, including insurance companies, banks and mutual funds.
Each of the BISYS Underwriter Applicants is an indirect, wholly-owned
subsidiary of BISYS and serves as principal underwriter for one or more
registered investment companies or series thereof (``Funds'').\2\ Each
BISYS Underwriter Applicant is registered with the Commission as a
broker-dealer under section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Neither BISYS nor any of the BISYS Underwriter Applicants
serves as investment adviser or depositor for any Fund or as
principal underwriter for any registered unit investment trust
(``UIT'') or registered face amount certificate company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. On July 27, 2007, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered the Injunction against BISYS in a
matter brought by the Commission.\3\ The Commission alleged in the
complaint (``Complaint'') that BISYS violated sections 13(a) and
13(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the Exchange Act and rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11
and 13a-13 thereunder when it engaged in improper accounting practices
that resulted in an overstatement of BISYS's financial results for the
fiscal years ended 2001 through 2003 by about $180 million. The alleged
violations involved improperly recording commissions earned by
companies before they were acquired by BISYS as its own revenue, the
failure to adequately reserve against an aging receivable balance,
improper accounting for renewal and bonus commissions, and other
improper accounting entries. The Complaint alleged that the resulting
inaccurate financial results were incorporated in public filings,
annual reports to shareholders, press releases and offering

documents. Thus, the Complaint alleged that BISYS violated the
financial reporting, books and records, and internal controls
provisions of the Exchange Act. Without admitting or denying the
allegations in the Complaint, except as to jurisdiction, BISYS
consented to a final judgment (``Final Judgment'') that includes, among
other things, the entry of the Injunction and the payment of
disgorgement and prejudgment interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. The
BISYS Group, Inc., 07-CIV-4010 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On August 1, 2007, Citigroup Inc. (``Citigroup'') acquired BISYS
(the ``BISYS Acquisition''). As a result of the BISYS Acquisition,
BISYS is now an affiliated person of the Citigroup Applicants, which
currently serve as investment advisers, depositors or principal
underwriters to Funds. Certain of the Citigroup Applicants serve as
investment advisers to employees' securities companies (included in the
term ``Funds'').

Applicants'' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person
who has been enjoined from engaging in or continuing any conduct or
practice in connection with the purchase or sale of a security from
acting, among other things, as an investment adviser or depositor of
any registered investment company or a principal underwriter for any
registered open-end investment company, registered UIT or registered
face-amount certificate company. Section 9(a)(3) of the Act makes the
prohibition in section 9(a)(2) applicable to a company, any affiliated
person of which has been disqualified under the provisions of section
9(a)(2). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines ``affiliated person'' to
include any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by,
or under common control with, the other person. Applicants state that
BISYS is an affiliated person of each of the other Applicants within
the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act. Applicants state that the
entry of the Injunction resulted in Applicants being subject to the
disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act.
    2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that the Commission shall grant
an application for exemption from the disqualification provisions of
section 9(a) if it is established that these provisions, as applied to
the Applicants, are unduly or disproportionately severe or that the
Applicants' conduct has been such as not to make it against the public
interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption.
Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking a
temporary and permanent order exempting the Applicants and the other
Covered Persons from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of
the Act. On July 27, 2007, the Applicants received a temporary
conditional order from the Commission exempting them from section 9(a)
of the Act with respect to the Injunction until the Commission takes
final action on an application for a permanent order or, if earlier,
September 24, 2007. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Investment Company Act Release No. 27915 (July 27, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants believe they meet the standard for exemption
specified in section 9(c). Applicants state that the prohibitions of
section 9(a) as applied to the Applicants would be unduly and
disproportionately severe and that the conduct of Applicants has been
such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of
investors to grant the exemption from section 9(a).
    4. Applicants state that the alleged conduct giving rise to the
Injunction did not involve any of the Applicants acting in the capacity
of investment adviser, sub-adviser, depositor, or principal underwriter
for any Fund and, with respect to the Citigroup Applicants, occurred
prior to the BISYS Acquisition, when they were not affiliated with
BISYS. Except as discussed in footnote 5, Applicants state that no
director, officer or employee of any of the Applicants who is or was
involved in providing investment advisory or underwriting services to
the Funds was involved in the conduct which forms the basis of the
Injunction.\5\ Applicants also state that the matters underlying the
Injunction are unrelated to the Applicants' investment advisory,
depository and principal underwriting activities. In addition,
Applicants represent that no Funds to which any BISYS Underwriter
Applicant currently provides underwriting services bought or held any
securities issued by BISYS during the period of misconduct alleged in
the Complaint, other than with respect to index funds and routine trade
errors that were promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Complaint contains general allegations relating to the
conduct of former employees of the Fund Services Division of BISYS,
but does not contain any specific allegations that any directors,
officers or employees of any of the Applicants who is or was
involved in providing underwriting services to the Funds
participated in the conduct which resulted in the Injunction. To the
best of the BISYS Applicants' knowledge and belief, any directors,
officers or employees that allegedly participated in the conduct
that resulted in the Injunction are either no longer employed by the
Applicants or are not, and will not be, involved in providing
investment advisory, depository or underwriting services to the
Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants further represent that the inability of the
Applicants to continue to serve as investment adviser, depositor or
principal underwriter to the Funds would result in potentially severe
hardships for the Funds and their shareholders. The BISYS Underwriter
Applicants have distributed, or will distribute as soon as reasonably
practical, written materials, including an offer to meet in person to
discuss the materials, to the board of directors or trustees of each
Fund (each, a ``Board'') for which the BISYS Underwriter Applicants
serve as principal underwriter, including the directors who are not
``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of
such Fund, and their independent legal counsel as defined in rule 0-
1(a)(6) under the Act, if any. These written materials will concern the
Final Judgment, any impact on the Funds, and the application. The
Applicants will provide the Funds with all information concerning the
Final Judgment and the application that is necessary for the Funds to
fulfill their disclosure and other obligations under the federal
securities laws.
    6. Applicants also assert that, if the Applicants were barred from
serving as investment adviser, depositor or principal underwriter to
the Funds, the effect on their businesses and employees would be
severe. The Applicants state that they have committed substantial
resources to establish an expertise in providing the services covered
by section 9(a) of the Act to Funds. Applicants further state that
prohibiting the Applicants from serving as investment advisers,
depositors or principal underwriters to the Funds would adversely
affect not only the viability of their businesses, but also the
livelihoods of more than 100 employees. Applicants also state that none
of the BISYS Applicants has ever previously applied for an exemption
pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:

    Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application
shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's
rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation
of, or administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered
Persons, including without limitation, the consideration by the
Commission of a permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act
requested pursuant to the application, or the revocation or removal
of any temporary exemptions granted under the Act in connection with
the application.

Temporary Order

    The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants
have

made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary exemption.
    Accordingly,
    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act, that the
Applicants and the other Covered Persons are granted a temporary
exemption from the provisions of section 9(a), effective forthwith,
solely with respect to the Injunction, subject to the condition in the
application, until the date the Commission takes final action on their
application for a permanent order.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19282 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68896-68897]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0033; OMB No. 1660-0132]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, Level 1 Assessment Form, Level 3 Evaluation Form for
Students, and Level 3 Evaluation Form for Supervisors

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In

accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning course evaluation surveys at the Center for
Domestic Preparedness.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2014-XXXX. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8, NE., Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Email. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket
ID FEMA-2014-0033 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda S. Pressley Instructional
Systems Specialist, Center for Domestic Preparedness,<PHONE_NUMBER> for
additional information. You may contact the Records Management Division
for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CDP is required by Congress to
``identify, develop, test, and deliver training to State, local, and
tribal emergency response providers, provide on-site and mobile
training at the performance and management and planning levels, and
facilitate the delivery of training by the training partners of the
Department'' pursuant to Section 1204 of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110-53,
121 Stat. 266, August 3, 2007 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 1102). The
collection of this data will help facilitate that Congressional
mandate.

Collection of Information

    Title: Level 1 Assessment Form, Level 3 Evaluation Form for
Students, and Level 3 Evaluation Form for Supervisors.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: OMB No. 1660-0132.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 092-0-2; Level 1 Assessment
Form. FEMA Form 092-0-2A; Level 3 Evaluation Form for Students. FEMA
Form 092-0-2B; Level 3 Evaluation Form for Supervisors.
    Abstract: The forms will be used to survey the Center for Domestic
Preparedness (CDP) students (and their supervisors) enrolled in CDP
courses. The survey will collect information regarding quality of
instruction, course material, and impact of training on their
professional employment.
    Affected Public: Local, State or Tribal governments

                                       Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Data collection activity/        Number of     Frequency of     Hour burden       Annual       Total annual
           instrument               respondents      responses     per response      responses     burden hours
                                             (A)             (B)             (C)   (D) = (A x B)         (C x D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1 Assessment Form, FEMA             38,000               1            0.25          38,000           9,500
 Form 092-02....................
Level 3 Evaluation Form for                6,000               1            0.25           6,000           1,500
 Students FEMA Form-092-02A.....
Level 3 Evaluation Form for                  600               1            0.25             600             150
 Supervisors, FEMA Form-092-02B.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          44,600               1            0.25          44,600          11,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: $403,795.25

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: November 12, 2014.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2014-27397 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-53-P


[Federal Register: May 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 95)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27665-27667]
[DOCID:fr18my10-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0515; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-196-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. 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:

    Several cases have been reported of cracks in the joint
extrusions securing the outer bondment to the acoustic panel of the
nacelle transcowl assemblies. Although there is no effect on flight
safety (thrust reverser stowed), thrust reverser deployment under
rejected take-off or emergency landing load conditions could
potentially result in acoustic panel failure and possible runway
debris.
* * * * *

The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected take-off or emergency
landing load conditions could leave debris on the runway. This debris,
if not removed, creates an unsafe condition for other airplanes during
take-off or landing, as those airplanes could impact debris on the
runway and sustain damage. The proposed AD would require actions that
are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 2, 2010.

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 W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. 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; or in person at the Docket Operations office
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 Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2010-0515;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-196-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 based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2009-33, dated July 28, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    Several cases have been reported of cracks in the joint
extrusions securing the outer bondment to the acoustic panel of the
nacelle transcowl assemblies. Although there is no effect on flight
safety (thrust reverser stowed), thrust reverser deployment under
rejected take-off or emergency landing load conditions could
potentially result in acoustic panel failure and possible runway
debris.
    This directive mandates inspection, repair (if necessary) and
reinforcement of the transcowl assemblies.

The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected take-off or emergency
landing load conditions could leave debris on the runway. This debris,
if not removed, creates an unsafe condition for other airplanes during
take-off or landing, as those airplanes could impact debris on the
runway and sustain damage. The inspection is a detailed visual
inspection of the outboard edge of the transcowl joint extrusion for
evidence of cracking. The repair consists of doing an eddy current or
liquid penetrant inspection for cracking, and depending on the results,
either removing the affected joint extrusion area and replacing with
packers, or contacting Bombardier for repair instructions and doing the
repair. The reinforcement of the transcowl assemblies includes
installing new support channels. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision A,
dated July 10, 2009; and Task 05-51-27-210-801 of Part 2, Volume 1, of
the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM), CSP B-001, Revision 28, dated January 20, 2009. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 361 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $245,480, or $680 per product.

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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0515; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-196-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 2, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10003 through 10265 inclusive.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial
numbers 15001 through 15192 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78: Engine
exhaust.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Several cases have been reported of cracks in the joint
extrusions securing the outer bondment to the acoustic panel of the
nacelle transcowl assemblies. Although there is no effect on flight
safety (thrust reverser stowed), thrust reverser deployment under
rejected take-off or emergency landing load conditions could
potentially result in acoustic panel failure and possible runway
debris.
* * * * *
The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected take-off or emergency
landing load conditions could leave debris on the runway. This
debris, if not removed, creates an unsafe condition for other
airplanes during take-off or landing, as those airplanes could
impact debris on the runway and sustain damage.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect for the part number
and serial number of each transcowl assembly, and, as applicable,
the repair status of each transcowl assembly.
    (i) If all transcowl assemblies installed on any airplane
applicable to this AD meet one of the conditions as listed in
paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A), (f)(1)(i)(B), or (f)(1)(i)(C) of this AD, no
further action is required by this AD.
    (A) Part number (P/N) KCN624-2003-3, -5, or -7.
    (B) P/Ns CN624-2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X mean various
dash numbers), with serial number (S/N) SB0965 or higher.
    (C) P/Ns CN624-2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X mean various
dash numbers), and repaired in accordance with one of the Bombardier
repair engineering orders (REOs) listed in paragraph 1.D of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision A, dated July 10,
2009.
    (ii) If one or more of the transcowl assemblies have P/N CN624-
2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X mean various dash numbers),
with S/N SB0964 or lower, and have not been repaired in accordance
with one of the Bombardier REOs listed in paragraph 1.D of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision A, dated July 10,
2009, do the actions specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, following any high-
energy stop or rejected take-off (RTO), perform a detailed visual
inspection of each transcowl assembly (left, right, upper, and
lower) before further flight, in accordance with Task 05-51-27-210-
801 of Part 2, Volume 1, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet
Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), CSP B-001, Revision 28, dated
January 20, 2009. If any crack is found on one or more transcowl
assemblies, before further flight, repair and reinforce the cracked
part(s) in accordance with paragraph (f)(3) of this AD. Doing the
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this AD terminates the
requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
    (3) Except as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, within
5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever comes first, do a detailed visual inspection for cracking
on each transcowl, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision
A, dated July 10, 2009. If any cracking of the joint extrusion is
found, before further flight, repair and reinforce the joint
extrusion on each transcowl, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision
A, dated July 10, 2009. If no cracking is found, before further
flight, reinforce the joint extrusion on each transcowl, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision A, dated July 10, 2009.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in this paragraph terminate
the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (f)(2) of this AD.
    (4) Inspections, repairs, and reinforcement of the joint
extrusion on each transcowl is also acceptable for compliance with
the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD if done before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670BA-78-008, dated September 19, 2008.
    (5) After accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, no replacement or spare transcowl assembly having
P/N CN624-2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X mean various dash
numbers), with S/N SB0964 or lower, may be installed on any airplane
unless the transcowl assembly has been repaired in accordance with
one of the Bombardier REOs listed in paragraph 1.D of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision A, dated July 10, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170, 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: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 40,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-33,
dated July 28, 2009; Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008,
Revision A, dated July 10, 2009; and Task 05-51-27-210-801 of Part
2, Volume 1, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Aircraft
Maintenance Manual, CSP B-001, Revision 28, dated January 20, 2009;
for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-11889 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35689]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0146]

Guidance for Industry on Irritable Bowel Syndrome--Clinical
Evaluation of Drugs for Treatment; Availability; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of May 31, 2012 (77 FR 32124).
The document announced the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Irritable Bowel Syndrome--Clinical Evaluation of Drugs for
Treatment.'' The document was published with an incorrect docket
number. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Strong, Office of Policy and
Planning, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
32, Rm. 3208, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2012-13143, appearing on page
32124 in the Federal Register of Thursday, May 31, 2012, the following
correction is made:
    1. On page 32124, in the first column, in the headings section of
the document, ``[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0146]'' is corrected to read
``[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0146]''.

    Dated: June 8, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-14485 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


XV  1 Appendix XIV.

COMPARISON OF OW AND OPP METHODS FOR AQUATIC ASSESSMENTS CATEGORY OW OPP APPROACH USED TO ESTABLISH LEVEL OF PROTECTION Establishes numerical ambient water quality criteria only if all required data are available. Develops a Criterion Continuous Concentration ( CCC) and a Criterion Maximum Concentration ( CMC) which are concentrations that should not result in unacceptable effects of aquatic organisms and their uses. Except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if the fourday average concentration of a chemical does not exceed the CCC more than once every three years on the average and if the one hour average concentration does not exceed the CMC more than once every three years. Uses " Quotient Method", whereby an Estimated Environmental Concentration ( EEC) is compared to an effect level, usually an LC50 for acute effects and an NOAEC for chronic effects. The resulting ratio of EEC to effect level, also referred to as the Risk Quotient ( RQ), is compared to a Level of Concern ( LOC).

EECs are developed from Tier I or Tier 2 surface water models. The Tier 1 model, GENEEC, estimates surface water concentrations from both runoff and spray drift from a 10 hectare field immediately adjacent to a 1 hectare pond that is 2 meters deep and has no outlet. The contribution of pesticide is based on a single application of pesticide followed by a storm event that causes 10 percent runoff of the applied pesticide into the adjacent pond. The contribution of pesticide from spray drift, however, is estimated based on spray drift that is associated with each application of pesticide. Data on fate processes such as hydrolysis in water, photolysis in soil, aerobic soil metabolism, aerobic aquatic metabolism, and sorption of pesticide onto soil are accounted for in estimating surface water concentrations.

If RQ values based on EECs estimated from GENEEC exceed LOCs, EECs are subsequently estimated from a Tier 2 model, PRZM/ EXAMS, which includes more detailed information on crop site characteristics than GENEEC. For each crop for which pesticide application is proposed, PRZM/ EXAMs includes a single location to represent a typical upper end scenario. Generally, weather and agricultural practices are simulated over 36 years so that the 1 in 10 year annual return frequency at the representative location can be estimated. This annual return frequency corresponds to the 90th percentile annual exceedance that was determined over the 36 year period that was modeled. The 90th percentile annual exceedance is determined by ranking from highest to lowest the dissolved water column concentrations for each of the 36 years modeled and determining the 90th percentile of these values. The EEC can also be based on monitoring data, if available. CATEGORY OW OPP XV  2 DERIVATION OF LEVELS OF PROTECTION The CMC is an estimate of the concentration of material corresponding to a cumulative probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for the genera with which acceptable acute tests have been conducted on the material. The CMC is intended to protect 95 percent of a group of diverse genera, unless a commercially or recreationally important species is very sensitive. The Criterion Maximum Concentration ( CMC) is based on one half the final acute values for fresh and salt water. The Final Acute Value is derived from Genus Mean Acute Values, the geometric means of all the Species Mean Acute Values for species in the genus. The Criterion Continuous Concentration ( CCC) is intended to be a good estimate of a threshold of unacceptable effect, not a threshold of adverse effect. The CCC is equal to the lowest of the Final Chronic Value, the Final Plant Value, and the Final Residue Value, unless other available data concerning adverse effects on aquatic organisms and their uses show that a lower value should be used. The Final Chronic Value might be calculated in the same manner as the Final Acute Value or by dividing the Final Acute Value by the Final Acute Chronic Ratio. A chronic value may be obtained by calculating the geometric mean of the lower and upper chronic limits from a chronic test or by analyzing chronic data using regression analysis. The Final Plant Value should be obtained by selecting the lowest result from a test with an important aquatic plant species in which the concentration of test material was measured and the endpoint was biologically important. The Final Residue Value is the lowest of the residue values that are obtained by dividing maximum permissible tissue concentrations by appropriate bioconcentration or bioaccumulation factors. A maximum permissible tissue concentration is either an FDA action level for fish oil or the edible portion of fish or shellfish, or a maximum acceptable dietary intake based on observations of survival, growth, or reproduction in a chronic wildlife feeding study or a long term wildlife field study. In addition, if appropriate, the CCC and CMC are also related to a water quality characteristic, such as pH, salinity, or hardness. In many situations, states might want to adjust water quality criteria to reflect local environmental conditions, ecologically important species, and human exposure patterns. To assess acute risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates, use the lowest LC50 or EC50 value for each ecosystem and aquatic organism ( i. e., freshwater and/ or estuarine/ marine fish and aquatic invertebrate) and compare the aquatic peak EEC with the LC50 or EC50 value. If the resulting risk quotient is greater than a Level of Concern ( LOC) of 0.5, then there is potential for acute risk to aquatic fish and invertebrates from use of the pesticide. If the resulting risk quotient is greater than an LOC of 0.1, but less than an LOC of 0.5, then risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates is presumed that may be mitigated by precautionary labeling statements or through labeled use restrictions. If the resulting risk quotient is less than an LOC of 0.1, but greater than an LOC of 0.05, then there is potential for risk to endangered aquatic fish and invertebrates.

To assess chronic risk to aquatic fish and invertebrates, use the No Observed Adverse Effect Level ( NOAEL) from the fish early lifestage or fish full life cycle tests and the aquatic invertebrate early life cycle test. Compare the NOAEL for aquatic fish with the 56 day average EEC and the NOAEL for aquatic invertebrates with the 21 day average EEC. If the resulting RQ is greater than an LOC of 1.0, then there is potential for chronic risks to these aquatic animals.

To assess acute risk to aquatic plants, use the lowest EC50 or NOAEC from Tier 1 or Tier 2 aquatic plant growth tests on five aquatic plant species. Compare this endpoint with the EEC derived from Tier 1 or Tier 2 surface water modeling, as needed. If the resulting RQ is greater than an LOC of 1.0, then there is potential for acute risk to aquatic plants. To assess acute risk to endangered aquatic plants, use the lowest LC50 from aquatic plant growth tests on 5 aquatic plants. Compare this endpoint with the aquatic plant EEC. If the resulting RQ is greater than an LOC of 1.0, then there is potential for acute risk to endangered aquatic plants. CATEGORY OW OPP XV  3 MINIMUM DATA REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH LEVEL OF PROTECTION To derive a criterion for freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses, the following should be available: ( 1) Results of acceptable acute tests with at least one species of freshwater animal in at least eight different families such that all of the following are included: the family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes; a second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or recreationally important warmwater species ( i. e., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.); a third family in the phylum Chordata ( may be in the class Osteichthyes or may be an amphibian, etc.); a planktonic crustacean ( e. g., cladoceran, copepod, etc.); a benthic crustacean ( e. g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.); an insect ( e. g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.); a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata ( e. g., Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca, etc.); a family in any order of insect or any phylum not represented. ( 2) Acute chronic ratios with species of aquatic animals in at least three different families provided that of the three species: at least one is a fish; at least one is an invertebrate; at least one is an acutely sensitive freshwater species ( the other two may be saltwater species). ( 3) Results of at least one acceptable test with a freshwater alga or vascular plant. ( 4) At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined with an appropriate freshwater species, if a maximum permissible tissue concentration is availble. Examines the potential risks of the proposed pesticide uses to non target fish and aquatic invertebrates in the freshwater and in the estuarine/ marine environments if there is potential for pesticide to be used in these environments. Examines risks to non target algae and aquatic plants when pesticide is an herbicide or fungicide. Aquatic toxicity test data required and associated indicator species include: ( 1) acute 96 hour toxicity test for freshwater fish  coldwater fish is the rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri) and warmwater fish is the bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus); ( 2) acute 96 hour toxicity test for freshwater invertebrates  water flea ( Daphnia magna); ( 3) acute 96 hour toxicity test for estuarine and marine fish  sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus); ( 4) acute 96 hour toxicity test for estuarine and marine crustacean  mysid, penaeid, or grass shrimp; ( 5) acute toxicity for estuarine and marine mollusc  96 hour flowthrough shell deposition and 48 hour embryolarvae studies on Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica); ( 6), ( 7) chronic fish early life stage and fish full life cycle studies on rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri) or brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis) and fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas); ( 8) aquatic invertebrate life cycle  water flea, ( Daphnia magna); ( 9) fish bioaccumulation factor.

Aquatic plant testing is required for all pesticides used outdoors. Tier 1 testing is to be performed on 5 aquatic plant species at the maximum proposed application rate on the pesticide label. The 5 aquatic plants to be tested in Tier 1include: duckweed ( Lemna gibba); marine diatom ( Skeletonema costatum); bluegreen alga ( Anabaena flos aquae); freshwater green alga ( Selenastrum capricornutum); and freshwater diatom ( unspecified species). The substance to be tested is the Typical End Use Product ( TEP) rather than the Technical Grade Active Ingredient ( TGAI). For any aquatic plant species exhibiting phytotoxic effects from Tier 1 testing, a Tier 2 test must be performed. Tier 2 testing is performed at dose rates less than the maximum label rate. CATEGORY OW OPP XV  4 SOURCE AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED Collects all available data on the chemical concerning toxicity to, and bioaccumulation by, aquatic animals and plants; FDA action levels; chronic feeding studies and long term field studies with wildlife species that regularly consume aquatic organisms. Under FIFRA, the Agency is not responsible for producing the data needed to assess ecological risks. That burden is placed upon the applicants for pesticide registration. OPP requests certain toxicity data prior to performing an aquatic risk assessment. The following aquatic toxicological hazard data represent the full complement of aquatic testing that could be requested for an aquatic risk assessment: Tier 1  96 hour coldwater fish LC50; 96 hour warmwater fish LC50; 48 hour ( or 96 hour) freshwater aquatic invertebrate LC50. Tier 2  96 hour estuarine/ marine fish LC50; 96 hour estuarine/ marine fish LC50; 48 hour oyster embryo larvae EC50; 96 hour oyster shell deposition EC50; fish early life stage No Observed Adverse Effect Level ( NOAEL); aquatic invertebrate life cycle NOAEL; fish bioaccumulation factor; and fish acetylcholinesterase levels. Tier 3  fish full life cycle NOAEL. Tier 4  fish/ aquatic invertebrate population effects in the field; simulated and actual field effects data on aquatic organisms.

Registrants are also required to provide data on the fate and transport of pesticides in the environment. These fate data requirements include: hydrolysis, photodegradation in water, photodegradation in soil, aerobic soil metabolism, anaerobic soil metabolism, anaerobic aquatic metabolism, and aerobic aquatic metabolism, leaching and adsorption/ desorption, and aquatic field dissipation. CATEGORY OW OPP XV  5 GENERAL CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE STUDIES Some general criteria are included in " Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses". These general criteria include: ( 1) All data that are used should be available in typed, dated, and signed hard copy with enough supporting information to indicate that acceptable test procedures were used and that the results are probably reliable. ( 2) In some cases it may be appropriate to obtain additional written information from the investigator, if possible. ( 3) Data on technical grade material may be used if appropriate, but data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates of the material of concern should not be used. ( 4) For some highly volatile, hydrolyzable, or degradable materials it is probably appropriate to use only results of flow through tests in which the concentrations of test material in the test solutions were measured often enough using acceptable analytical methods. ( 5) Questionable data, data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates, and data obtained with non resident species or previously exposed organisms may be used to provide auxiliary information but may not be used in the derivation of criteria. To be determined as acceptable, or Core, studies must meet Subdivision E guidelines. OPP has published regulations which specify the data that are required for registration ( i. e., 40 CFR part 158), and guidelines which provide recommended testing methods that are needed to produce the required data ( i. e., Pesticide Assessment Guidelines  Subdivision E). In addition, Standard Evaluation Procedures ( SEPs) have been developed for each type of data that is required for an ecological risk assessment. These SEPs explain the procedure used to evaluate ecological effects data submitted to OPP, and ensure comprehensive and consistent treatment of the science in reviews as well as providing interpretive policy guidance. These SEPs are published and are available through the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS).

Specific Standard Evaluation Procedure documents for aquatic organism tests include:

( 1) Ecological Risk Assessment  EPA 540/ 9 85 001; ( 2) Acute Toxicity Test for Freshwater Fish  EPA 540/ 9 85 006; ( 3) Acute Toxicity for Freshwater Invertebrates  EPA 540/ 9 85 005; ( 4) Acute Toxicity Test for Estuarine and Marine Organisms ( Shrimp 96 Hour Acute Toxicity Test)  EPA 540/ 9 85 010; ( 5) Acute Toxicity Test for Estuarine and Marine Organisms ( Estuarine Fish 96 Hour Acute Toxicity Test)  EPA 540/ 9 85 009; ( 6) Acute Toxicity Test for Estuarine and Marine Organisms ( Mollusc 96 Hour Flow Through Shell Deposition Study)  EPA 540/ 9 85 011; ( 7) Non Target Plants: Growth and Reproduction of Aquatic Plants  Tiers 1 and 2  EPA 540/ 9 86 134; ( 8) Fish Early Life Stage  EPA 540/ 9 86 138; ( 9) Daphnia magna Life Cycle ( 21 Day Renewal) Chronic Toxicity Test  EPA 540/ 9 86 141; and ( 10) Fish Life Cycle Toxicity Tests  EPA 540/ 9 86 137.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 53 (Monday, March 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 15231]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4582-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Navajo Nation; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Navajo Nation (FEMA-4582-DR), dated
    February 2, 2021, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued February 25, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Navajo Nation is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of February 2, 2021.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for the Navajo Nation (already designated for emergency protective
measures [Category B] not authorized under other Federal statutes,
including direct Federal assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-05799 Filed 3-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68122-68126]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27048]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70820; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-136]

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

November 6, 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 October 28, 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 Customer \3\ and Professional \4\

Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options \5\ and NOM Market
Maker \6\ Fees for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' 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 a broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48)).
    \4\ The term ``Professional'' 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.
    \5\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and in October
2009 was expanded and extended through December 31, 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); 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); and 69787 (June 18, 2013), 78 FR 37858 (June
24, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-082). See also NOM Rules, Chapter VI,
Section 5.
    \6\ The term ``NOM Market Maker'' means 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on November 1,
2013.
    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 proposes to amend Tier 8 of the
Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity.
The Exchange also proposes to modify the NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot
Options Fee for Removing as described in more detail below.
    Today, the Exchange offers an eight-tiered Rebate to Add Liquidity
in Penny Pilot Options to Customers and Professionals as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Rebate to add
                    Monthly volume                          liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1--Participant adds Customer and/or Professional              $0.25
 liquidity of up to 0.20% of total industry customer
 equity and ETF option average daily volume (``ADV'')
 contracts per day in a month
Tier 2--Participant adds Customer and/or Professional               0.40
 liquidity of 0.21% to 0.30% of total industry
 customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day
 in a month
Tier 3--Participant adds Customer and/or Professional               0.43
 liquidity of 0.31% to 0.49% of total industry
 customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day
 in a month
Tier 4--Participant adds Customer and/or Professional               0.45
 liquidity of 0.5% or more of total industry customer
 equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
 month
Tier 5--Participant adds (1) Customer and/or                        0.42
 Professional 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 115,000 or                  0.45
 more contracts per day in a month, of which 25,000 or
 more contracts per day in a month must be Customer
 and/or Professional liquidity
Tier 7--Participant has Total Volume of 150,000 or                  0.47
 more contracts per day in a month, of which 50,000 or
 more contracts per day in a month must be Customer
 and/or Professional liquidity
Tier 8--Participant (1) has Total Volume of 325,000 or              0.48
 more contracts per day in a month, or (2) Participant
 has Total Volume of 200,000 or more contracts per day
 in a month, of which 70,000 or more contracts per day
 in a month must be Customer and/or Professional
 liquidity or (3) adds Customer and/or Professional
 liquidity of 1.00% or more of national customer
 volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options
 classes in a month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Tier 8 which currently pays a
rebate of $0.48 per contract to a Participant that: (i) Has Total
Volume \7\ of 325,000 or more contracts per day in a month; or (ii)
Participant has Total Volume of 200,000 or more contracts per day in a
month, of which 70,000 or more contracts per day in a month must be
Customer and/or Professional liquidity or (iii) adds Customer and/or
Professional liquidity of 1.00% or more of national customer volume in
multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month. The Exchange
is proposing to continue to pay a $0.48 per contract rebate for Tier 8
and amend the rebate tier by eliminating the criteria of executing a
Total Volume of 325,000 or more contracts per day in a month. Pursuant
to the proposal, in order to

qualify for a Tier 8 Customer or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity,
a Participant would now be required to either execute (i) Total Volume
of 200,000 or more contracts per day in a month, of which 70,000 or
more contracts per day in a month must be Customer and/or Professional
liquidity or (ii) Customer and/or Professional liquidity of 1.00% or
more of national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF
options classes in a month. The Exchange believes that Participants
will continue to be incentivized to achieve a Tier 8 rebate while
directing additional Customer and/or Professional liquidity on NOM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Total Volume is defined as Customer, Professional, Firm,
Broker-Dealer, Non-NOM Market Maker and NOM Market Maker volume in
Penny Pilot Options or non-Penny Pilot Options which either adds or
removes liquidity on NOM. See Chapter XV, Section 2(1) of the NOM
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the NOM Market Maker Penny
Pilot Fee for Removing Liquidity by increasing the fee from $0.47 to
$0.48 per contract. The Exchange believes that despite the fee
increase, that NOM Market Makers will continue to remove liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act \9\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which NASDAQ operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 8 Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity is reasonable
because the Exchange will continue to offer competitive Customer and
Professional rebates in order to attract liquidity to the market to the
benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that offering
Customers and Professionals the opportunity to earn higher rebates
based on certain volume requirements 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. The amended Tier 8 criteria
should incentivize Participants to add Customer and Professional
liquidity to NOM. Participants would no longer be able to qualify by
solely obtaining Total Volume which is defined as Customer,
Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer, Non- NOM Market Maker and NOM Market
Maker volume in Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny Pilot Options which
either adds or removes liquidity on NOM; however, some portion of the
liquidity could still be Firm, Broker-Dealer, Non-NOM Market Maker and
NOM Market Maker volume in Penny Pilot Options or Non-Penny Pilot
Options which either adds or removes liquidity.\10\ The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable to incentivize Participants to add a
greater amount of Customer and/or Professional liquidity, combined with
other volume, as a means to qualify for the Tier 8 rebate. This
proposal only impacts one of the ways in which a Participant may
qualify for the Tier 8 rebate. In addition, other exchanges employ
similar incentive programs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Tier 8 continues to permits Participants to add Total
Volume of 200,000 or more contracts per day in a month so long as
70,000 or more contracts per day in a month consists of Customer
and/or Professional liquidity.
    \11\ See CBOE Fees Schedule. 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 RUT, mini-options, 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 also Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Section B
which contains the Customer Rebate Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 8 rebate by removing the
ability to qualify for the tier by transacting Total Volume of 325,000
or more contracts per day in a month is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because this amendment will be applied to all market
participants in a uniform matter. Any market participant is eligible to
receive the Tier 8 rebate provided they transact a qualifying amount of
Customer and Professional volume in Penny Pilot Options. Further,
market participants may continue to apply some amount of Total Volume
transactions toward qualifying for this rebate; however, the amount of
eligible volume from certain types non-Customer, non-Professional
volume would be limited to limited to 130,000 contracts.
    This proposal does not widen a current pricing differential. The
Exchange would continue to pay the highest Tier 1 Rebates to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of $0.25 per contract to Customers,
Professionals and NOM Market Makers for transacting one qualifying
contract as compared to other market participants.\12\ 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 Professionals the same Penny Pilot Options
Rebates to Add Liquidity as Customers is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the reasons which follow. 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. By 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. 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.\13\ A Professional could only otherwise
presume the Tier 1 rebate would be achieved in a month when determining
price.\14\ Further, the Exchange initially established Professional
pricing in order to ``. . . bring additional revenue to the Exchange.''
\15\ 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.'' \16\
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.\17\
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,
as discussed herein.\18\ For these reasons, the Exchange believes that
continuing to offer Professionals the same rebates as Customers is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Also, NOM Market Makers
would continue to be offered the opportunity to earn higher rebates as
compared to Non-NOM Market Makers, Firms and Broker Dealers \19\
because NOM Market Makers add value through continuous quoting \20\ and
the commitment of capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers receive a
$0.10 per contract Penny Pilot Option Rebate to Add Liquidity. In
addition, a Participant that adds Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker or
Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny
Pilot Options of 15,000 contracts per day or more in a given month
will receive a Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of
$0.20 per contract.
    \13\ Customer and Professional volume is aggregated for purposes
of determining which rebate tier a Participant qualifies for with
respect to the Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options.
    \14\ A Professional would be unable to determine the exact
rebate that would be paid on a transaction by transaction basis with
certainty until the end of a given month when all Customer and
Professional volume is aggregated for purposes of determining which
tier the Participant qualified for in a given month.
    \15\ 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.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066).
    \17\ 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.
    \18\ Pursuant to this proposal, the Fee for Removing Liquidity
in Penny Pilot Options is $0.48 per contract for all market
participants, except Customers, who are assessed a fee of $0.45 per
contract.
    \19\ Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers are paid a
$0.10 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options
and have the opportunity to earn a higher Penny Pilot Options Rebate
to Add Liquidity of $0.20 per contract if they transact 15,000
contract per day or more in a given month of Penny Pilot Options or
Non-Penny Pilot Options liquidity.
    \20\ 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's proposal to increase the NOM Market Maker Fee for
Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is reasonable because the fee
is within the range of fees assessed to other market participants. The
Exchange's proposal to increase the NOM Market Maker Fee for Removing
Liquidity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange would uniformly assess all market participants, except
Customers, the same Fee for Removing Liquidity of $0.48 per contract.
Customers order flow brings unique benefits to the market in terms of
liquidity and therefore Customers are assessed lower fees. By assessing
a NOM Market Maker the same fee as other market participants, except
Customers, the Exchange is removing the pricing differential that
exists today. Also, NOM Market Makers have the ability to earn higher
rebates as compared to the $0.10 Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options that is available to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-
Dealers. This is because NOM Market Makers add value through continuous
quoting \21\ and the commitment of capital. Customers and Professionals
also have the opportunity to earn tiered rebates for the reasons noted
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. Customers have traditionally been paid the
highest rebates offered by options exchanges. While the Exchange's
proposal results in a Professional receiving the same or 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. By 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. 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 amendment to the Tier 8
rebate will incentivize market participants to direct additional
Customer and/or Professional liquidity to the Exchange to obtain the
Tier 8 rebate. This liquidity will benefit other market participants.
    The Exchange does not believe that increasing the NOM Market Maker
Fee for Removing Liquidity creates a burden on competition. The
increased NOM Market Maker Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options will align this fee for all non-Customers. Customers will
continue to be assessed a lower Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options because Customer order flow brings unique benefits to the
market in terms of liquidity, which benefits other market participants.
    The Exchange believes the differing outcomes, rebates and fees
created by the Exchange's proposed pricing incentives contribute to the
overall health of the market place for the benefit of all Participants
that willing choose to transact options on NOM. For the reasons
specified herein, the Exchange does not believe this proposal creates
an undue burden on competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market comprised of twelve U.S. options exchanges in which
many sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily
and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels
or rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. These market forces support the Exchange belief that the
proposed rebate structure and tiers proposed herein are competitive
with rebates and tiers in place on other exchanges. The Exchange
believes that this competitive marketplace continues to impact 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.\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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-2013-136 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-2013-136. 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-NASDAQ-2013-136, and should
be submitted on or before December 4, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27048 Filed 11-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P