[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23497-23498]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10711]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83244; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule Related to Its PULSe Workstation

May 15, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 1, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees schedule related to its
PULSe workstation.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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. The Exchange is
changing fees related to its PULSe workstation. The fees herein will be
effective on May 1, 2018.
    By way of background, the PULSe workstation is a front-end order
entry system designed for use with respect to orders that may be sent
to the trading systems of the Exchange. Exchange Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') may also make workstations available to their customers,
which may include TPHs, non-broker dealer public customers, and non-TPH
broker dealers.
    Financial Information eXchange (``FIX'') language-based
connectivity, upon request, provides customers (both TPH and non-TPH)
of TPHs that are brokers and PULSe users (``PULSe brokers'') with the
ability to receive ``drop-copy'' order fill messages from their PULSe
brokers. These fill messages allow customers to update positions, risk
calculations, and streamline back-office functions.
    The Exchange is proposing to reduce and cap the monthly fee to be
assessed on TPHs who are sending drop copies to non-TPH customers via a
PULSe workstation. Currently, if a customer receiving drop copies is a
non-TPH, the PULSe broker (the sending TPH) who sends drop copies via
PULSe to that customer is charged $400 per month. The Exchange is
proposing to reduce that fee to $0.02 per contract with a cap of $400
per month per receiving non-TPH. If that PULSe broker sends drop copies
via PULSe to multiple non-TPH customers, the PULSe broker will be
charged the fee for each customer. For example, if a PULSe broker sends
drop copies via its PULSe workstation to each of non-TPH customer A,
non-TPH customer B, and non-TPH customer C, the PULSe broker (the
sending TPH) will be charged a fee of $.02 per contract for drop copies
it sends via PULSe to non-TPH customers A, B, and C (the receiving non-
TPHs) with a cap of $1,200 ($400 per non-TPH customers A, B, and C).
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.\3\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \4\ 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
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that reducing the $400 per month to $0.02 per
contract with a cap of $400 per month on a TPH sending drop copies from
PULSe to a non-TPH customer is reasonable because the fee will continue
to allow the Exchange to monitor, develop and implement upgrades,
maintain, and customize PULSe to ensure a non-TPH customer receives
timely and accurate drop copies while also potentially reducing the
sending TPH's costs. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed equally to
any TPH sending drop copies to its non-TPH customers. Additionally, use
of the drop copy functionality by a TPH and non-TPH customer is
voluntary.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burdens 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 the proposed PULSe-
related fees are assessed equally to TPH broker's electing to use the
optional Drop Copy functionality. The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed change will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket
competition because the proposed fees relate to use of an Exchange-
provided order entry system. To the extent that any proposed change
makes the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become Exchange 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 \6\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \7\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-033 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-CBOE-2018-033. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-033 and should be submitted on
or before June 11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10711 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Call from Fred Sciance, GM  May 14, 2010

To:   Margaret Sheppard, EPA

313-665-2962

Genesis of Alliance comments on SNUR.  Chrysler said, §609
certification goes beyond

what OEMs currently do.

Mr. Sciance noted that there will be new OSHA requirements with
flammable materials, so staff will be aware of difference and will get
training.

Can there be different §609 requirements for OEMs?

He had advised Giedrus Ambroziatus at the Alliance to submit it as a
late comment on the SNAP rule.


Verner Liipfert Bernhard

McPherson and Hand, Chartered

901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 700

Washington, D.C.  20005

202-371-6030

	ShawPittman LLP

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20037

202-663-8060

April 24, 2002

Via electronic submission

Mr. Paul L. Gretch

Director, Office of International Aviation

U.S. Department of Transportation

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 6402

Washington, D.C.  20590

RE:	30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and

Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Aeromexico”)

(Intra-U.S. codesharing), Docket OST-97-3289

Dear Mr. Gretch:

Pursuant to Order 99-6-6, Delta and Aeromexico hereby notify the Department that, beginning on or about May 24, 2002, Delta will display Aeromexico's “AM” designator code on flights operated by Delta between Salt Lake City, on the one hand, and Atlanta, Boston and Washington, D.C. (IAD), on the other hand.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William C. Evans				/s/ A. Van der Bellen

William C. Evans

Verner Liipfert Bernhard

McPherson and Hand, Chartered

901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, D.C.  20005

202-371-6030

Robert E. Cohn

Alexander Van der Bellen

ShawPittman LLP

2300 N Street, NW

Washington, D.C.  20037

202-663-8060

Counsel for

Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Counsel for

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Footnote continued from previous page

Footnote continued on next page


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68933-68937]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27310]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73589; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-94]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Implementing Fees for
the NYSE ArcaBook for Amex Options Complex Feed and a Change to the
NYSE Amex Options Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (``Market Data
Fee Schedule'') Regarding Non-Display Use Fees

November 13, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 30, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 add fees for the NYSE Arcabook for Amex
Options Complex Feed, operative on November 1, 2014, and change the
NYSE Amex Options Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (``Market Data
Fee Schedule'') regarding non-display use fees. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
NYSE ArcaBook for Amex Options--Complex--Fee Changes
    The Exchange offers six NYSE Amex Options real-time options market
data products: ArcaBook for Amex Options--Trades, ArcaBook for Amex
Options--Top of Book, ArcaBook for Amex Options--Depth of Book,
ArcaBook for Amex Options--Complex, ArcaBook for Amex Options--Series
Status, and ArcaBook for Amex Options--Order Imbalance (collectively,
``Amex Options Products'').\4\ The Exchange currently charges the
following fees for receipt of all six Amex Options Products: \5\ An
Access Fee of $3,000 per month; a Redistribution Fee of $2,000 per
month; a Professional User Fee of $50 per month for each Professional
User; and a Non-Professional User Fee of $1 per month for each Non-
Professional User. There is a Non-Professional User Fee Cap of $5,000
per month per Redistributor. The fee for non-display use of all six
Amex Options Products is $5,000 per data recipient for each category of
organization (i.e., for Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3).\6\ The
Exchange does not currently have separate pricing for each of the
individual products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67719 (August 23,
2012), 77 FR 52767 (August 30, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-40) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Proposing
To Offer Certain Proprietary Options Data Products).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68004 (October 9,
2012), 77 FR 62582 (October 15, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-49) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Establish Fees for Certain Proprietary Options Market Data
Products). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69553 (May
10, 2013), 78 FR 28926 (May 16, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-40) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Establishing Non-Display Usage Fees and Amending the Professional
End-User Fees for NYSE Amex Options Market Data). See also
Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 71934 (April 11, 2014), 79
FR 21818 (April 17, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-30) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the
Professional User Fees for NYSE Amex Options Market Data, Operative
on April 1, 2014).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73008 (September 5,
2014), 79 FR 54325 (September 11, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-73) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Its Fees for Non-Display Use of NYSE Amex Options Market
Data) (``2014 Non-Display Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Starting on May 1, 2014, the Exchange began offering one of the six
feeds, ArcaBook for Amex Options--Complex, on a standalone basis
without charge from May 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014.\7\ The Exchange
proposes to charge fees for ArcaBook for Amex Options--Complex,
beginning November 1, 2014, as follows: An Access Fee of $1,500 per
month; a Redistribution Fee of $1,000 per month for ArcaBook for Amex
Options--Complex; and fees of $20 per month for each Professional User
and $1 per month for each Non-Professional User. The Exchange is not
proposing a Non-Professional User Fee Cap. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to charge a Non-Display Fee for non-display use of ArcaBook
for Amex Options--Complex of $1,000 per data recipient for each
category of organization, i.e., for Category 1, Category 2 and Category
3.\8\ As with the fees for Amex Options Products, data recipients would
not be liable for Category 2 Non-Display fees for which they are also
paying Category 1 Non-Display fees; and similarly, Category 3 fees
would be capped at $3,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72075 (May 1, 2014),
79 FR 26290 (May 7, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-40) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Offering ArcaBook
for Amex Options--Complex on a Standalone Basis Without Charge from
May 1, 2014 Through October 31, 2014).
    \8\ See 2014 Non-Display Filing, supra n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose to make any other changes to the fees
for Amex Options Products.
Changes to Fee Schedule Regarding Non-Display Use
    The Exchange proposes a change to the Market Data Fee Schedule
regarding non-display use fees. Specifically, with respect to the three
categories of, and fees applicable to, market data recipients for non-
display use, the Exchange proposes to describe the three categories in
the Market Data Fee Schedule.
    In September 2014, the Exchange revised the fees for non-display
use of and added fees for non-display use of NYSE ArcaBook for Amex
Options.\9\ In the 2014 Non-Display Filing, the Exchange proposed
certain changes to the categories of, and fees applicable to, data
recipients for non-display use. As set forth in the 2014 Non-Display
Filing: (i) Category 1 Fees apply when a data recipient's non-display
use of real-time market data is on its own behalf as opposed to use on
behalf of its clients; (ii) Category 2 Fees apply when a data
recipient's non-display use of real-time market data is on behalf of
its clients as opposed to use on its own behalf; and (iii) Category 3
Fees apply when a data recipient's non-display use of real-time market
data is for the purpose of

internally matching buy and sell orders within an organization,
including matching customer orders on a data recipient's own behalf
and/or on behalf of its clients. The Market Data Fee Schedule currently
lists each category as Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3, without
further description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 2014 Non-Display Filing, supra n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Market Data Fee Schedule to
add the descriptions of the three categories, as set forth above, as a
footnote to the Market Data Fee Schedule. Because there will now be
multiple footnotes to the Market Data Fee Schedule, the Exchange
proposes non-substantive edits to change the existing footnote
references from asterisks to numbers.
    The Exchange does not propose to make any other changes to the fees
for Amex Options Products.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
would provide an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users
and recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because it would allow vendors and subscribers to pay the standalone
fees associated with the one product rather than payment of the higher
fees associated with all six Amex Options Products. In this regard, the
Exchange notes that some vendors of, and subscribers, to the Amex
Options Products currently utilize only ArcaBook for Amex Options--
Complex. The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the same levels of fees would be charged to
similar types of users of the same market data products.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the proposed fees would be comparable to the fees that other
option markets charge for comparable market data products. For example,
CBOE charges, for its ``Complex Order Book Feed,'' a Distributor Fee of
$3,000 per month, a Professional User Fee of $25 per month and a Non-
Professional User Fee of $1 per month.\12\ Similarly, the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') offers a ``Spread Feed,'' which
includes order and quote data for complex strategies, and charges
related fees, including $3,000 per month for distributors and a monthly
controlled device fee of $25 per controlled device for
Professionals.\13\ NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') also offers a market
data product entitled ``PHLX Orders,'' which similarly includes order
and last sale information for complex strategies and other market data,
and charges a $3,000 internal monthly fee ($3,500 for external), $2,000
per Distributor and $500 per subscriber.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'')
``Complex Order Book Feed'' product and pricing information,
available at https://www.cboe.org/MDX/CSM/OBOOKMain.aspx. CBOE also
applies a User Fee Cap of $2,000. The Exchange is not proposing a
Non-Professional Fee Cap at this time.
    \13\ See ISE ``Spread Feed'' market data product and pricing
information, available at http://www.ise.com/market-data/products/data-feeds/.
    \14\ See PHLX ``PHLX Orders'' market data product and pricing
information, available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=PHLXOrders and http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPPriceListOptions#PHLX, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable for the proposed Non-
Display Fee for ArcaBook for Amex Options--Complex to be lower than the
fee for non-display use for all six Amex Options Products (i.e., $5,000
per month). Specifically, some vendors of, and subscribers to, the Amex
Options Products currently utilize only ArcaBook for Amex Options--
Complex and the proposed rate reflects this use of only one of the six
Amex Options Products. This proposal would also be equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would establish an overall monthly
fee that reflects the value of the data to the data recipients in their
profit-generating activities.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable for the proposed
Non-Professional User Fee to be the same as the existing fee for all
six Amex Options Products (i.e., $1 per User per month) because the
current fee is already set at a very reasonable and competitive level.
This is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
current fee of $1 per Non-Professional User is charged if the Non-
Professional User receives the six Amex Options Products, and not on
the basis of how many of the six Amex Options Products a Non-
Professional User utilizes. Therefore, currently, a Non-Professional
User that is receiving all six Amex Options Products but using only one
feed would pay the $1 per User fee and similarly, as proposed, a Non-
Professsional User that is only subscribing to the ArcaBook for Amex
Options--Complex feed would pay the same $1 per User fee.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable not to propose a
Non-Professional User Fee Cap at this time because such a cap is not
anticipated to encourage greater subscription to or distribution of
ArcaBook for Amex Options--Complex. The absence of a Non-Professional
User Fee Cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because each
Redistributor would be charged the same amount for each additional Non-
Professional User that subscribes to ArcaBook for Amex Options--
Complex, regardless of how many Non-Professional Users to which the
Redistributor makes ArcaBook for Amex Options--Complex available.
    The Exchange also notes that purchasing Amex Options Products is
entirely optional. Firms are not required to purchase them and have a
wide variety of alternative options market data products from which to
choose. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make these
proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing
alternatives to any customers.
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), upheld reliance by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to
set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market
data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'

    Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted
in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's
conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive forces should
dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national
market system for trading equity securities.' '' \15\ The Exchange
believes that this is also true with respect to options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for data and that the Commission can
rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees proposed in this
filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the

relevant statutory standards.\16\ In addition, the existence of
alternatives to these data products, such as options data from other
sources, as described below, further ensures that the Exchange cannot
set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory,
when vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'') amended
paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3),
to make clear that all exchange fees for market data may be filed by
exchanges on an immediately effective basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach.\17\ The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 536.
    \18\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, and as
described below, it is impossible to regulate market data prices in
isolation from prices charged by markets for other services that are
joint products. Cost-based rate regulation would also lead to
litigation and may distort incentives, including those to minimize
costs and to innovate, leading to further waste. Under cost-based
pricing, the Commission would be burdened with determining a fair
rate of return, and the industry could experience frequent rate
increases based on escalating expense levels. Even in industries
historically subject to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking
has been discredited. As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based
ratemaking would be inappropriate for proprietary market data and
inconsistent with Congress's direction that the Commission use its
authority to foster the development of the national market system,
and that market forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing
discipline. See Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's
2000 Concept Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees
and Revenues, which can be found on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that adding the description of the three
categories of data recipients for non-display use to the Market Data
Fee Schedule would remove impediments to and help perfect a free and
open market by providing greater transparency for the Exchange's
customers regarding the category descriptions that have been previously
filed with the Commission and are applicable to the existing Market
Data Fee Schedule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 2014 Non-Display Filing, supra n.5 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary data products is constrained by actual
competition for the sale of proprietary data products, the joint
product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of alternatives
to the Exchange's proprietary data.
    The Existence of Actual Competition. The market for proprietary
options data products is currently competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline to the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for options trades and sales of options market
data itself, providing ample opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to compete in any or all of those areas, including producing and
distributing their own options market data. Proprietary options data
products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange, as
well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed, the
U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') (the primary antitrust regulator)
has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition among
exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data itself. In
2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges ``compete head to head to offer
real-time equity data products. These data products include the best
bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade,
including the last sale.'' \20\ Similarly, the options markets
vigorously compete with respect to options data products.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html.
    \21\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67466 (July
19, 2012), 77 FR 43629 (July 25, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-93), which
describes a variety of options market data products and their
pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, competitive markets for order flow, executions, and
transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary options data products and therefore constrain markets from
overpricing proprietary options market data. Broker-dealers send their
order flow to multiple venues, rather than providing them all to a
single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive constraint.
Options markets, similar to the equities markets, are highly
fragmented.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., Press Release, TABB Says US Equity Options
Market Makers Need Scalable Technology to Compete in Today's Complex
Market Structure (February 25, 2013), available at http://www.tabbgroup.com/PageDetail.aspx?PageID=16&ItemID=1231;
Fragmentation Vexes Options Markets (April 21, 2014), available at
http://marketsmedia.com/fragmentation-vexes-options-market/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order
flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and
increases the value of its proprietary options market data products
because they will contain greater quote and trade information.
Conversely, if an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes,
order flow, and trade executions, then its options market data products
may be less desirable to customers using them in support of order
routing and trading decisions in light of the diminished content; data
products offered by competing venues may become correspondingly more
attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order flow, and trade
executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both
execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
    In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through
market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters, the
vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary
data products because they control the primary means of access to
certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon
their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on
data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that
their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers.
Vendors will not elect to make available Amex Options Products
described herein unless their customers request them, and customers
will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless this data product can
provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in
the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of
these factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data
products.
    Joint Product Nature of Exchange Platform. Transaction execution
and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is
both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact,
proprietary market data and trade executions are a paradigmatic example
of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether

and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of
the platforms where the order can be posted, including the execution
fees, data availability and quality, and price and distribution of
their data products. Without a platform to post quotations, receive
orders, and execute trades, exchange data products would not exist.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes,
accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating
the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor
confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the
revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
    Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the
costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of
doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to
direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction
exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and
trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by
its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase
the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial
evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data
purchases. For example, in July 2014 more than 80% of the options
transaction volume on each of NYSE MKT and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'') was executed by market participants that purchased one or more
proprietary market data products. A super-competitive increase in the
fees for either executions or market data would create a risk of
reducing an exchange's revenues from both products.
    Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data
and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have
common costs.\23\ The Exchange agrees with and adopts those discussions
and the arguments therein. The Exchange also notes that the economics
literature confirms that there is no way to allocate common costs
between joint products that would shed any light on competitive or
efficient pricing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153 (May 12,
2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-045)
(``[A]ll of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified
purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders,
and generating and selling data about market activity. The total
return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from
the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62907 (September 14,
2010), 75 FR 57314, 57317 (September 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110),
and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62908 (September 14, 2010),
75 FR 57321, 57324 (September 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-111).
    \24\ See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of Managerial
Economics, at 600 (2009) (``It is important to note, however, that
although it is possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is impossible to
determine their individual average costs. This is because common
costs are expenses necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production--raw material and equipment costs,
management expenses, and other overhead--cannot be allocated to each
individual by-product on any economically sound basis. . . . Any
allocation of common costs is wrong and arbitrary.''). This is not
new economic theory. See, e.g., F. W. Taussig, ``A Contribution to
the Theory of Railway Rates,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics V(4)
438, 465 (July 1891) (``Yet, surely, the division is purely
arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are jointly incurred for
both sorts of traffic; and I cannot share the hope entertained by
the statistician of the Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that
we shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will lead to
trustworthy results.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is
impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the
market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for
order flow, including 12 self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') options
markets. Two of the 12 have launched operations since December
2012.\25\ The Exchange believes that these new entrants demonstrate
that competition is robust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70050 (July 26,
2013), 78 FR (August 1, 2013) (approving exchange registration for
Topaz Exchange, LLC) (known as ISE Gemini); and 68341 (December 3,
2012), 77 FR 73065 (December 7, 2012) (approving exchange
registration for Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``Miami Exchange'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its
joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range
of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of
recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay
rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data
products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge
relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms
may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to
attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data
products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted
liquidity. For example, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), which
previously operated as an ATS and obtained exchange status in 2008, has
provided certain market data at no charge on its Web site in order to
attract more order flow, and uses revenue rebates from resulting
additional executions to maintain low execution charges for its
users.\26\ In this environment, there is no economic basis for
regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry
in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the
joint offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See description of free market data from BATS Options,
available at http://www.batsoptions.com/market_data/products/. This
is simply a securities market-specific example of the well-
established principle that in certain circumstances more sales at
lower margins can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that market data is an
inherent part of a market's joint platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Existence of Alternatives. The large number of SROs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO is currently permitted to produce and sell proprietary data
products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE Arca; CBOE; C2 Options
Exchange, Incorporated; ISE; ISE Gemini; NASDAQ; Phlx; BX; BATS; and
Miami Exchange.
    The fact that proprietary data from vendors can bypass SROs is
significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with
SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products. By way
of example, BATS and NYSE Arca both published proprietary

data on the Internet before registering as exchanges. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the amount of data
available via proprietary products is greater in size than the actual
number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
Because market data users can find suitable substitutes for most
proprietary market data products, a market that overprices its market
data products stands a high risk that users may substitute one or more
other sources of market data information for its own.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history
of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, and BATS. As noted above, BATS launched as
an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008. Two new options
exchanges have launched operations since December 2012.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the
competitiveness of the market for proprietary options market data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors, and has not considered
irrelevant factors, in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the
Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources,
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary
data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns
that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the
purchase.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to
describe the three categories of data recipients for non-display use in
the Market Data Fee Schedule would impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the Exchange is merely adding to the Market Data Fee
Schedule information that has been previously filed with the
Commission.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 2014 Non-Display Filing, supra n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \29\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \30\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEMKT-2014-94 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-94. 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 will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEMKT-2014-94 and should be submitted on or before
December 10, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27310 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                 ATTACHMENT D

             Moderator's Guide for Consumer Focus Group Session

                           OMB Control No. 2070-0189
                         Approval expires 02/28/17

 The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated at 2 hours per response. Responses will be private to the extent permitted by law. This is a voluntary collection; respondents do not have to respond if there is no OMB control number.. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed application to this address.
Moderator's Guide for Consumer Focus Group Session  -  General Adult Consumers
         Testing Awareness and Perceptions of EPA Safer Choice Program
                            DRAFT  -  June 11, 2013

Need in the room:  Pencils and highlighters for all participants; an easel for the moderator.

Introduction [15 minutes]
Welcome and thank you for joining us. My name is ______ and I will be your moderator for this focus group session, which is about providing information to help consumers select products that are safer and better for families, pets, and the environment. I'd like to hear how you feel about this topic, and I'm also interested in your perceptions about some visual materials, which I will show you a bit later. I want to let you know that I am not an expert in this topic; rather, I am an independent moderator trained to facilitate our discussion.

Our client for this research is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), located in Washington, D.C. The EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. This research has been approved by the OMB, and the control number is _______. I have a copy of the burden statement associated with this research for you [hand out].

Our discussion should take about 1.5 hours.

Disclosure
 Observation: There is a one-way mirror with observers in the next room who are interested in hearing your views, but don't want to interrupt the conversation.
 Audio taping: This session will be recorded by audio to enable us to capture everything that is being said today. We will use the tape to write our report to our client.
 Your answers will be private to the extent permitted by law, so feel free to say exactly what is on your mind. Nothing will be attributed to any particular person in our aggregated report; however, we will be sharing all results with our client.

Ground rules
 Need to hear from everyone, one at a time please
 No right or wrong answers, want personal opinions
 Moderator is impartial, please be candid
 It's okay to be critical. If you dislike something you hear, it's fine to disagree but please be willing to offer your own views and opinions.
 If anyone needs to use the rest room, they are located [specify]. There is no need to stop the discussion.

Do you have any questions before we get started?

Participant introductions
 Brief introductions around the table  -  tell us a little about yourself (e.g., name, occupation, family, pets)

Awareness and Use of Certification Seals [10 minutes]
Let's start our session by taking a look at some products you may have seen in a local supermarket or retail store.

[Show several products in a category, perhaps cleaning products  -  include at least one with a green certification and at least one without]

 Which one of these products would you choose to purchase in the supermarket?
 Why?
 Let's look more closely at this product [pick up a product that has a green certification mark on it]
 Have you seen this mark before?
 What does it mean?

The mark on this product indicates a green certification program, which is a program intended to help consumers purchase safer and/or more environmentally sustainable products. These programs are also known as "eco-label" programs.

Are you familiar with green certification programs?
 Which ones are you familiar with? [Prompt if necessary: Green Seal, Good Housekeeping Green Ratings, EcoLogo, Home Depot's Eco Options, USDA Organic, Energy Star]
 Have you ever used any of these programs to help you decide which products to buy?

Perceptions of Safer Choice Program [15 minutes]
Different certification programs have different purposes  -  for example, EnergyStar specifically helps consumer purchase products that are more energy efficient, whereas the USDA Organic program lets consumers know which products are certified organic. I want to talk about an EPA program intended to help consumers select products that can help protect the environment and are safer for people, families, and pets. I'll distribute a description of this program, and you can read along with me.

The U.S. EPA's Safer Choice program is a voluntary program that works in partnership with industry, environmental groups, and academia to help protect people and the planet by identifying safer chemicals and allowing safer chemical-based products to carry the Safer Choice label. For more than 15 years, the EPA has been evaluating the human health and environmental concerns associated with traditional and alternative chemicals and empowering businesses to make safer chemical-based products. When you see the Safer Choice label on a product it means the Safer Choice scientific review team has screened each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and that the product contains only the safest chemical ingredients available.

 Has anyone ever heard of the Safer Choice program?
 Have you used it to help you decide which products to buy?
 What's your overall impression of this program?
 Does it sound useful to you?
 As you shop in your local supermarket or retail outlet, would it be helpful to you to have some easy way of knowing if a product has been determined to be safer for people or if it can help protect the environment?
 If you could get that information at a glance just by looking at the product, do you think it might influence your purchase decision?
 Why or why not?
 If the products in a particular category all cost about the same, do you think you'd choose the product that has been certified by the EPA to be safer for people and the environment?
 Which of those two claims would motivate you more to purchase a certified product  -  safer for people or protects the environment?

Testing Safer Choice Logo (45 minutes)

I'd like to show you the Safer Choice label, which appears on product packages to let consumers know which products have been certified under this program to be safer for people and the environment. I'd like to get your thoughts regarding this label and whether it is effective in communicating the goals of this program.

Label

 How would you sum up your first impression of this label?
 Would you notice it if you saw it on a product?
 Is it attractive?
 Why or why not?
 What does this label mean to you, the consumer?
 How well do you think the message comes across in this label?
 Is it easy to understand at a glance?
 Is this label credible?  Do you believe it will deliver on what the label conveys?
 Why or why not?
 Does this label give you any information about the safety of the product?
 If so, what does it tell you?
 Does this label give you any information about the product's impact on the environment?
 If so, what does it tell you?
 Does this label provide enough information to help you choose between various products in a category?
 Why or why not?
 How well do you think the name conveys what the program is trying to do?
 How well do you think the visual label conveys what the program is trying to do?
 How likely would you be to use this label to help you decide on a product to purchase?
 Why or why not?
 Have you seen products in store with this label on it?
 Where?  When? Was it prominently displayed?  Was there an abundance of product stock?
 Have you purchased a product with this design on it?
 When?  Which product?  Which store?  Did you enjoy the product?
 Why did you purchase?  What motivated you?
 Have you seen promotions for products with this label?
 Where?  When?  Was it compelling?  Why?  Why not?
 What would it take for you seek out a product with this label?
 Why is this important to you? Unimportant to you?
 What is most important to you when deciding which products in this category you would purchase?
 Why?  Is this always the case?  Why or Why not?
 What is your thought process when deciding to purchase these products?  Are you apprehensive?  Do you not give it much thought?  Why? Why not?
 Do you discuss these purchasing decisions in your family?  Among friends?  Neighbors?
 Who or what do you consider influential in terms of impacting your purchasing decisions or attitudes toward products?  Why?

Now that we've talked about the Safer Choice Label, let's dig a little deeper to variations of the logo. (PROBE FOR FEEDBACK ON LABELS INCLUDING VARIATIONS SUCH AS FRAGRANCE FREE OR INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS)

Alternate design:
                                     Logo
                                     Logo

 How would you sum up your first impression of this label?
 Would you notice it if you saw it on a product?
 Is it attractive?
 Why or why not?
 What does this label mean to you, the consumer?
 How well do you think the message comes across in this label?
 Is it easy to understand at a glance?
 Is this label credible?  Do you believe it will deliver on what the label conveys?
 Why or why not?
 Does this label give you any information about the safety of the product?
 If so, what does it tell you?
 Does this label give you any information about the product's impact on the environment?
 If so, what does it tell you?
 Does this label provide enough information to help you choose between various products in a category?
 Why or why not?
 How well do you think the name conveys what the program is trying to do?
 How well do you think the visual label conveys what the program is trying to do?
 How likely would you be to use this label to help you decide on a product to purchase?
 Why or why not?
 Have you seen products in store with this label on it?
 Where?  When? Was it prominently displayed?  Was there an abundance of product stock?
 Have you purchased a product with this design on it?
 When?  Which product?  Which store?  Did you enjoy the product?
 Why did you purchase?  What motivated you?
 Have you seen promotions for products with this label?
 Where?  When?  Was it compelling?  Why?  Why not?
 What would it take for you seek out a product with this label?
 Why is this important to you? Unimportant to you?
 What is most important to you when deciding which products in this category you would purchase?
 Why?  Is this always the case?  Why or Why not?
 What is your thought process when deciding to purchase these products?  Are you apprehensive?  Do you not give it much thought?  Why? Why not?
 Do you discuss these purchasing decisions in your family?  Among friends?  Neighbors?
 Who or what do you consider influential in terms of impacting your purchasing decisions or attitudes toward products?  Why?

Communication Preferences and Wrap Up (5 minutes)

As a result of our discussion tonight, are you interested in learning more about the EPA program we have discussed this evening?

What would be the best way to provide additional information for you?  Where would you be most likely to pay attention to it?  [E.g., web site, product packaging, point of purchase information or display, magazines or newspapers]

On behalf of the U.S. EPA, I want to thank all of you for your input today. Please stop by the reception desk to receive an incentive for joining us this evening. [Collect all materials]


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28480-28483]
[DOCID:fr21my10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0172; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-189-AD;
Amendment 39-16308; AD 2010-11-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes;
Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model A300
C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series
Airplanes); and A310 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This 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:

    In the past, some operators have reported difficulties to
pressurise the hydraulic reservoirs, due to leakage of the Crissair
reservoir air pressurisation check valves. * * * The leakage of the
check valves was caused by an incorrect spring material. The
affected Crissair check valves * * * were then replaced with
improved check valves P/N [part number] 2S2794-1 * * *.
    More recently, similar issues were again reported on aeroplanes
with Crissair check valves P/N 2S2794-1 installed. The
investigations * * * have shown that a spring, mounted inside the
valve, does not meet the Airbus type design specifications.
    This situation, if not corrected, can cause hydraulic system
functional degradation, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane when combined with an air duct leak, air conditioning
system contamination or, if installed, malfunction of the fire
extinguishing system in the Class `C' cargo compartment.
* * * * *
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 25, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 25,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2010
(75 FR 8551). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    In the past, some operators have reported difficulties to
pressurise the hydraulic reservoirs, due to leakage of the Crissair
reservoir air pressurisation check valves. In some cases, the air
conditioning system was contaminated with hydraulic mist. The
leakage of the check valves was caused by an incorrect spring
material. The affected Crissair check valves Part Number (P/N)
2S2794 were then replaced with improved check valves P/N 2S2794-1 in
accordance with Airbus Service Information Letter 29-020.
    More recently, similar issues were again reported on aeroplanes
with Crissair check

valves P/N 2S2794-1 installed. The investigations carried out on
those check valves have shown that a spring, mounted inside the
valve, does not meet the Airbus type design specifications.
    This situation, if not corrected, can cause hydraulic system
functional degradation, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane when combined with an air duct leak, air conditioning
system contamination or, if installed, malfunction of the fire
extinguishing system in the Class `C' cargo compartment.
    For the reasons described above, EASA [European Aviation Safety
Agency] AD 2008-0166 was issued to require the inspection of the
Crissair check valves P/N 2S2794-1, to identify serial numbers (s/n)
and the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.
    Later on, further investigation by the vendor Crissair revealed
more suspect check valves P/N 2S2794-1. Based on this, it was
concluded that EASA AD 2008-0166 did not adequately address the
unsafe condition and also did not correctly identify the Functional
Item Numbers (FIN) of the various aeroplane installations of the
affected valves. Consequently, EASA AD Cancellation Notice No.:
2008-0166-CN was issued on 29 October 2008 to cancel EASA AD 2008-
0166.
    An updated list of suspect check valves with P/N 2S2794-1 has
now been issued by Crissair Inc., the manufacturer. Consequently,
this EASA AD requires the identification of the check valves by s/n
and the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

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 required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 206 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 12 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $210,120, or $1,020 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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 the NPRM, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2010-11-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-16308. Docket No. FAA-2010-0172;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-189-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 25,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C,
B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, B4-203, B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-
605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes;
and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes; certificated in any category, all certified models and
all serial numbers on which any Crissair check valve part number
2S2794-1 is installed.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29:
Hydraulic Power; and 26: Fire Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    In the past, some operators have reported difficulties to
pressurise the hydraulic reservoirs, due to leakage of the Crissair
reservoir air pressurization check valves. In some cases, the air
conditioning system was contaminated with hydraulic mist. The
leakage of the check valves was caused by an incorrect spring
material. The affected Crissair check valves Part Number (P/N)
2S2794 were then replaced with improved check valves P/N 2S2794-1 in
accordance with Airbus Service Information Letter 29-020.

    More recently, similar issues were again reported on aeroplanes
with Crissair check valves P/N 2S2794-1 installed. The
investigations carried out on those check valves have shown that a
spring, mounted inside the valve, does not meet the Airbus type
design specifications.
    This situation, if not corrected, can cause hydraulic system
functional degradation, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane when combined with an air duct leak, air conditioning
system contamination or, if installed, malfunction of the fire
extinguishing system in the Class `C' cargo compartment.
    For the reasons described above, EASA [European Aviation Safety
Agency] AD 2008-0166 was issued to require the inspection of the
Crissair check valves P/N 2S2794-1, to identify serial numbers (s/n)
and the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.
    Later on, further investigation by the vendor Crissair revealed
more suspect check valves P/N 2S2794-1. Based on this, it was
concluded that EASA AD 2008-0166 did not adequately address the
unsafe condition and also did not correctly identify the Functional
Item Numbers (FIN) of the various aeroplane installations of the
affected valves. Consequently, EASA AD Cancellation Notice No.:
2008-0166-CN was issued on 29 October 2008 to cancel EASA AD 2008-
0166.
    An updated list of suspect check valves with P/N 2S2794-1 has
now been issued by Crissair Inc., the manufacturer. Consequently,
this EASA AD requires the identification of the check valves by s/n
and the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 of
this AD: For Crissair check valves, P/N 2S2794-1, identify the
serial number using Appendix 1 of the applicable service bulletin
identified in Table 2 of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin
identified in Table 2 of this AD. Except as provided by paragraph
(f)(2) of this AD, for any valve having a serial number listed in
Appendix 1 of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 2
of this AD, before further flight, install a new or modified check
valve in accordance with the applicable service bulletin identified
in Table 2 of this AD.

               Table 1--Affected Check Valve Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Affected check valve installation,
identified by FIN (Functional Item Number)         Compliance time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Airplanes having Hydraulic System with  Within 4 months after the
 FIN 29/1388, FIN 29/2388 and FIN 29/3388.   effective date of this AD.
(ii) Cargo Compartment Fire Extinguishing   Within 4 months after the
 System, equipped with Flow Metering         effective date of this AD.
 System (A310 and A300-600 airplanes
 having ``post[dash]Airbus modification
 06403'' only) FIN 26/0203.
(iii) Airplanes having Hydraulic System     Within 30 months after the
 with FIN 29/1378, FIN 29/1382 and FIN 29/   effective date of this AD.
 1394.
(iv) Hydraulic System (A300 airplanes       Within 30 months after the
 having configuration 01 ``pre[dash]Airbus   effective date of this AD.
 modification 03079'' only) FIN 29/1381.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Check valves P/N 2S2794-1 marked with an ``R'' have already
been modified in accordance with Crissair Service Bulletin 20070407-
29-1 and do not need to be replaced. Check valves with P/N 2S2794
are not affected and do not need to be replaced.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
any Crissair check valve, P/N 2S2794-1, on any airplane unless it
has a serial number other than those listed in Appendix 1 of the
applicable service bulletin identified in Table 2 of this AD, or
unless check valve P/N 2S2794-1 is marked with an ``R.''

                                          Table 2--Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Use Airbus Mandatory Service
         For Airbus Model--                    Bulletin--             Revision--               Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 airplanes......................  A300-29-0124, including                   02  March 10, 2009.
                                       Appendices 1, 2, and 3.
A300-600 airplanes..................  A300-29-6060, including                   01  March 10, 2009.
                                       Appendices 1, 2, and 3.
A310 airplanes......................  A310-29-2097, including                   01  March 19, 2009.
                                       Appendices 1, 2, and 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (4) Submit an inspection report of the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to Airbus Customer Services Directorate,
1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 33 33; fax +33 5 61 93 42 51; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the applicable time specified in
paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii) of this AD. The report must
include the information specified on the inspection report sheet
provided in the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 2 of
this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: Although the MCAI states not to install the part
identified in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD after accomplishing the
actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, this AD prohibits
installation of the part as of the effective date of this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; 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 EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0171, dated
August 5, 2009; and the service bulletins identified in Table 2 of
this AD; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use the service information contained in Table 3 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS-EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the 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>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

               Table 3--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Document                Revision               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Mandatory Service                     02  March 10, 2009.
 Bulletin A300-29-0124,
 including Appendices 1, 2, and
 3.
Airbus Mandatory Service                     01  March 10, 2009.
 Bulletin A300-29-6060,
 including Appendices 1, 2, and
 3.
Airbus Mandatory Service                     01  March 19, 2009.
 Bulletin A310-29-2097,
 including Appendices 1, 2, and
 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 11, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-11757 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64992-64993]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25436]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0651; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-24]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tomahawk, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Tomahawk Regional Airport, Tomahawk, WI.
This action is due to an airspace review requested by the Airspace
Policy Group. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also being
updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 30, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Tomahawk Regional Airport, Tomahawk, WI, to support
instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (84 FR 48572; September 16, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0651
to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Tomahawk Regional Airport, Tomahawk, WI. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments

on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to of the Tomahawk Regional Airport, Tomahawk, WI, by
adding an extension 2 miles each side of the 090[deg] bearing from the
airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.4 miles east of the
airport; adding an extension 2 miles each side of the 270[deg] bearing
from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9 miles west of
the airport; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review requested by the
Airspace Policy Group.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Tomahawk, WI [Amended]

Tomahawk Regional Airport, WI
    (Lat. 45[deg]28'10'' N, long. 89[deg]48'18'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Tomahawk Regional Airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 090[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.4 miles east the airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 270[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.4-mile radius to 9 miles west of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 18, 2019.
Steve Szukala,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-25436 Filed 11-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P