Wednesday,

June 25, 2003 Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Federal Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Copper and Nickel Applicable to South San Francisco Bay, California; Proposed Rule VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 24 Jun 24, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25JNP2. SGM 25JNP2 37926 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2003 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 131 [ FRL   7519   4]

Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Federal Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Copper and Nickel Applicable to South San Francisco Bay, California AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Federal regulations to withdraw aquatic life water quality criteria for copper and nickel applicable to south San Francisco Bay, California. South San Francisco Bay is the area of San Francisco Bay that is located south of the Dumbarton Bridge. On May 18, 2000, EPA promulgated Federal regulations establishing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California, since the State had not complied with the Clean Water Act. This regulation is known as the `` California Toxics Rule'' or `` CTR.'' Thereafter, on May 22, 2002, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region ( the RWQCB), adopted amendments to its Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin ( Basin Plan). The amendments contained copper and nickel aquatic life water quality criteria for south San Francisco Bay. The State of California calls these criteria site specific water quality objectives or site specific objectives. The State of California's State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) and Office of Administrative Law ( OAL) then reviewed and approved the Basin Plan amendments containing the site specific objectives. On January 9, 2003, the SWRCB submitted the Basin Plan amendment containing the sitespecific objectives to EPA Region 9 for review and approval. On January 21, 2003, EPA Region 9 approved the copper and nickel aquatic life sitespecific objectives for south San Francisco Bay. Since the State of California now has aquatic life site specific objectives, effective under the Clean Water Act ( CWA), for copper and nickel for south San Francisco Bay, EPA has determined that the Federally promulgated copper and nickel aquatic life criteria are no longer needed for south San Francisco Bay. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to withdraw the copper and nickel aquatic life criteria for south San Francisco Bay from the CTR. DATES: All written comments received on or before July 25, 2003, will be considered in preparation of the final rule. Comments postmarked after this date may not be considered. ADDRESSES: You should address written comments to Diane E. Fleck, P. E., Esq., Water Division ( WTR   2), U. S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, Attention Docket ID No. OW   2003   0015. Please send an original and three copies of comments and enclosures ( including references). You may also submit comments electronically or through hand delivery or courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided under `` How and To Whom to Submit Comments.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane E. Fleck, P. E., Esq. ( WTR   2) or Nancy Yoshikawa ( WTR   5) at U. S. EPA Region 9, Water Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 ( tel: 415   972   3480 or 415   972   3535, respectively, fax: 415   947   3537 or 415   974   3545, respectively) or e mail at Fleck. Diane@ EPA. gov or Yoshikawa. Nancy@ EPA. gov. For general or administrative questions, please contact Brian Thompson at U. S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 ( tel: 202   566   0382, fax: 202   566   0409) or e mail at Thompson. Brian@ EPA. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Potentially Regulated Entities No one is regulated by this proposed rule. This proposed rule, if adopted, merely withdraws Federal copper and nickel aquatic life water quality criteria applicable to south San Francisco Bay, California.

How To Obtain Copies of This Document and Other Related Information 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OW   2003   0015. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing under, `` Water Quality Standards; Withdrawal of Federal Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Copper and Nickel Applicable to South San Francisco Bay, California,'' at U. S. EPA Region 9, Water Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, phone: 415 972   3480. This Docket Facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. PST to 4: 30 p. m. PST, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee will be charged for copies. 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 24 Jun 24, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25JNP2. SGM 25JNP2 37927 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2003 / Proposed Rules version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available through the docket facility. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket, visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

How and To Whom To Submit Comments You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' While EPA is not required to consider these late comments, we will make every attempt to consider them. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EDOCKETS. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources,'' `` Dockets,'' and `` EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in Docket ID OW   2003   0015. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e mail) to Fleck. Diane@ EPA. gov, Attention Docket ID No. OW   2003   0015. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the address identified in the following paragraph. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Diane E. Fleck, P. E., Esq., Water Division ( WTR   2), U. S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, Attention Docket ID No. OW   2003   0015. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to the address identified in the preceding paragraph, attention Docket ID OW   2003   0015. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation from 8: 30 a. m. PST to 4: 30 p. m. PST, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

Background On May 18, 2000, EPA promulgated a final rule known as the `` California Toxics Rule'' or `` CTR'' to establish numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California, since the State had not complied fully with section 303( c)( 2)( B) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) ( 65 FR 31682). The criteria, codified at 40 CFR 131.38, became the applicable water quality criteria in California effective May 18, 2000, for all purposes and programs under the CWA. EPA acknowledged in the preamble to the CTR that the State of California is working to satisfy the requirements of CWA section 303( c)( 2)( B) and anticipated that the Agency, once the state submitted its water quality standards to EPA, would approve the State adopted water quality criteria for pollutants included in the CTR ( 65 FR 31684, May 18, 2000). The State of California calls these criteria sitespecific water quality objectives or sitespecific objectives. The water quality standards program was developed with an emphasis on State primacy. Although in the CTR EPA promulgated toxic criteria for the State of California, EPA prefers that States maintain primacy, revise their own standards, and achieve full compliance ( see 57 FR 60860, December 22, 1992). In a rulemaking similar to the CTR, EPA determined that if the State's criteria were no less stringent than the promulgated Federal criteria, EPA would withdraw its criteria without notice and comment. However, if the State adopted criteria that were less stringent than the Federallypromulgated criteria, but in the Agency's judgment fully met the requirements of the Act, EPA would provide an opportunity for public comment before withdrawing the Federally promulgated criteria ( see 57 FR 60860, December 22, 1992). As described in detail below under `` Site Specific Aquatic Life Objectives for Copper and Nickel,'' the State of California recently adopted copper and nickel aquatic life site specific objectives for the south San Francisco Bay which EPA subsequently approved. In today's action, EPA is proposing to amend the CTR by withdrawing aquatic life copper and nickel criteria applicable to south San Francisco Bay, California.

Site Specific Aquatic Life Objectives for Copper and Nickel On May 22, 2002, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, adopted sitespecific water quality objectives for nickel and copper to protect aquatic life in the south San Francisco Bay and submitted the revised Water Quality Control Plan to EPA on January 9, 2003. The aquatic life water quality criteria for copper contained in the CTR table at 40 CFR 131.38( b)( 1) for saltwater are: 4.8 ug/ l dissolved acute ( exposure for a short period of time) and 3.1 ug/ 1 dissolved chronic ( exposure for an extended [ 4 day] period of time). The aquatic life water quality criteria for VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 24 Jun 24, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25JNP2. SGM 25JNP2 37928 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2003 / Proposed Rules nickel contained in the CTR table at 40 CFR 131.38( b)( 1) for saltwater are: 74 ug/ l dissolved acute ( exposure for a short period of time) and 8.2 ug/ l dissolved chronic ( exposure for an extended [ 4 day] period of time). Both the copper and nickel criteria are further expressed as a function of the watereffect ratio ( or WER). The WER in the CTR is assumed to be 1 for all applicable pollutants but may be otherwise defined by the State using appropriate procedures ( see 65 FR 31718). The aquatic life water quality objectives for copper adopted by the State of California and approved by EPA for south San Francisco Bay are: 10.8 ug/ l dissolved acute ( exposure for a 1 hour average period of time) and 6.9 ug/ l dissolved chronic ( exposure for a 4 day average period of time). The aquatic life water quality objectives for nickel adopted by the State of California and approved by EPA for south San Francisco Bay are: 62.4 ug/ l dissolved acute ( exposure for a 1 hour average period of time) and 11.9 ug/ l dissolved chronic ( exposure for a 4 day average period of time). Under the procedures set out in the National Toxics Rule, published December 22, 1992, and referenced in the CTR, when a state adopts and EPA approves water quality criteria that meet the requirements of the CWA, EPA will issue a rule amending the federal regulations to withdraw the federally applicable criteria. If the State's criteria are no less stringent than the promulgated Federal criteria, EPA will withdraw its criteria without notice and comment rulemaking because additional comment is unnecessary. However, if a State adopts criteria that are less stringent than the Federally promulgated criteria, but that in the Agency's judgement fully meet the requirements of the Act, EPA will provide an opportunity for public comment before withdrawing the Federally promulgated criteria. On October 17, 2002, the State Water Resources Board adopted the sitespecific objectives for copper and nickel in the lower south San Francisco Bay. The objectives were subsequently submitted to EPA on January 9, 2003, for its review and approval. EPA recognizes that three out of the four California criteria for copper and nickel are less stringent than the federally CTR promulgated criteria. However, the sitespecific objectives were developed from the results of a number of detailed studies and technical reports that were the subject of technical peer review and were part of the collaborative stakeholder process known as the `` Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative.'' Based on this additional information, EPA determined that these adopted criteria are fully protective of the aquatic life designated uses of California's waters in the south San Francisco Bay and met the requirements of the Clean Water Act. EPA approved California's water quality objectives on January 21, 2003. Therefore, EPA determined that the federal aquatic life water quality criteria for copper and nickel in these waters are no longer necessary. Because three out of the four California criteria for copper and nickel are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria, EPA is requesting comments on its action to withdraw copper and nickel criteria from the CTR. EPA will address public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 1. Executive Order 12866   Regulatory Planning and Review This action withdraws specific Federal requirements applicable to south San Francisco Bay, California and imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any person or entity, does not interfere with the action or planned action of another agency, and does not have any budgetary impacts or raise novel legal or policy issues. Thus, it has been determined that this rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.) because it is administratively proposing to withdraw Federal requirements that no longer need to apply to south San Francisco Bay, California.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of a rule that is subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any small entity. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

4. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act Title III of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, Tribal and local governments and the private sector. Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates ( under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, Tribal, or local governments or the private sector because it imposes no enforceable duty on any of these entities. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 202 and 205 for a written statement and small government agency plan. Similarly, EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and is therefore not subject to UMRA section 203.

5. Executive Order 13132   Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled, `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure State and local government officials have an opportunity to provide input in the development of regulatory policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of governments. This proposed rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any State or local governments, therefore, it does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

6. Executive Order 13175   Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Again, this proposed rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any Tribal government. It does not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000).

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 24 Jun 24, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25JNP2. SGM 25JNP2 37929 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2003 / Proposed Rules 7. Executive Order 13045   Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant, and EPA has no reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

8. Executive Order 13211   Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act The requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) do not apply because this rule does not involve technical standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 Environmental protection, Indianlands Intergovernmental Relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

Dated: June 20, 2003. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 131 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 131   WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart D   [ Amended]

2. Section 131.38( b)( 1) is amended by revising Footnote b to read as follows: § 131.38 Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California.

* * * * * ( b)( 1) * * * Footnotes to Table in Paragraph ( b)( 1): * * * * * b. Criteria apply to California waters except for those waters subject to objectives in Tables III   2A and III   2B of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board's ( SFRWQCB) 1986 Basin Plan that were adopted by the SFRWQCB and the State Water Resources Control Board, approved by EPA, and which continue to apply. For copper and nickel, criteria apply to California waters except for waters south of Dumbarton Bridge in San Francisco Bay that are subject to the objectives in the SFRWQCB's Basin Plan as amended by SFRWQCB Resolution R2   2002   0061, dated May 22, 2002, and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. EPA approved the aquatic life site specific objectives on January 21, 2003. The copper and nickel aquatic life sitespecific objectives contained in the amended Basin Plan apply instead.

* * * * * [ FR Doc. 03   16231 Filed 6   24   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 24 Jun 24, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25JNP2. SGM 25JNP2


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1396-1398]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00066]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71222; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To Adopt
Commentary .03 to Rule 980NY To Limit the Volume of Complex Orders by a
Single ATP Holder During the Trading Day

January 2, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On October 28, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant

to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to
adopt Commentary .03 to NYSE MKT Rule 980NY to limit the volume of
complex orders that may be entered by a single ATP Holder during the
trading day. On November 5, 2013, the Exchange submitted Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, was published for comment in the Federal
Register on November 13, 2013.\4\ The Commission received no comments
on the proposed rule change. On December 23, 2013, the Exchange granted
an extension of time for the Commission to act on the filing until
January 3, 2014.\5\ On December 24, 2013, the Exchange submitted
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 2 from
interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70816 (November 6,
2013), 78 FR 68111 (``Notice'').
    \5\ In addition, on December 24, 2013, the Commission extended
the time period for Commission action to January 3, 2014. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71183 (December 24, 2013).
    \6\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange amended the proposed rule
change by removing the language in the proposal that gives the
Exchange discretion to adjust the specified percentage (i.e.,
``n%'') to an amount less than 60% and ``n%-x'' to an amount less
than 40%. Amendment No. 2 has been placed in the public comment file
for NYSEMKT-2013-86 at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2013-86/nysemkt201386.shtml (see letter from Janet McGinness, EVP &
Corporate Secretary, General Counsel, NYSE MKT, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated December 26, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange currently ranks and tracks Electronic Complex Orders
in the Consolidated Book in a ``complex order table.'' Although the
Exchange stated that the complex order table has sufficient capacity to
accept all Complex Orders submitted by all ATP Holders under normal
operating conditions, the Exchange also noted that that capacity is not
unlimited.\7\ Given that this capacity is not unlimited, the Exchange
proposes to adopt Commentary .03 to Rule 980NY \8\ to provide that if
an ATP Holder submits orders that comprise more than ``n%'' of the
capacity of the complex order table (the ``Cap''), the Exchange will
reject that ATP Holder's Electronic Complex Orders for the remainder of
the trading day. Proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 980NY also provides a
``warning threshold'' of ``n%-x'' of the complex order table. If an ATP
Holder breaches such warning threshold, it would result in the Exchange
rejecting the ATP Holder's Electronic Complex Orders until such time
that the ATP Holder has notified the Exchange to re-enable the
submission of Electronic Complex Orders. The Exchange will not reject
any Electronic Complex Orders until after an ATP Holder has breached
either the warning threshold (i.e., ``n%-x'') or the Cap.\9\ The
specified percentage (i.e., ``n%'') will be no less than 60%, and ``n%-
x'' will be no less than 40%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to the Exchange, the complex order table currently
has the capacity to hold Electronic Complex Orders containing up to
16 million legs throughout the trading day. See Notice, supra note 4
at 68111, n. 8.
    \8\ Rule 980NY governs trading of Complex Orders on the NYSE MKT
System (``Electronic Complex Orders'').
    \9\ For example, if an ATP Holder submits an Electronic Complex
Order that, once accepted, breaches the Cap, the Exchange will
accept that order in its entirety and then will reject all
subsequent Electronic Complex Orders from that ATP Holder for the
remainder of the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Trader Update to be published no later than 60 days
following approval by the Commission. The implementation date will be
no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Trader Update.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which requires,
among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes
that providing the Cap could provide the Exchange with a system
protection tool to address the potential risk that a single ATP Holder
could--either intentionally or inadvertently--utilize the entire
complex order table, effectively shutting out all other ATP Holders'
Electronic Complex Orders from the Exchange for the remainder of the
trading day. By disabling the submission of Electronic Complex Orders
of a single ATP Holder that has exceeded the Cap, the Cap should allow
the Exchange to accommodate Electronic Complex Orders from all other
ATP Holders, thereby helping to ensure efficient functionality of the
complex order table and the protection of investors and the public
interest. In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that the Exchange represented that under normal operating conditions,
the combined Electronic Complex Orders of all ATP Holders do not exceed
40% of the complex order table.\12\ Therefore, the Exchange believes
that setting the Cap for a single ATP Holder at 60% would allow 40% of
the complex order table--which is typically sufficient to accommodate
all ATP Holder's Electronic Complex Orders--to remain accessible to the
balance of ATP Holders and would not unfairly deny these ATP Holders
access to the market.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 4 at 68112. The Commission also
notes that the Exchange represented that a single ATP Holder would
only exceed the Cap (or receive a warning of a near breach) in the
event of a bona fide problem (e.g., a system error or malfeasance).
See id.
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2
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-2013-86 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-86. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-86 and should
be submitted on or before January 29, 2014.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

    As proposed, the proposed rule change provided that, unless
determined otherwise by the Exchange and announced to ATP Holders via
Trader Update, the specified percentage (i.e., ``n%'') will be no less
than 60%, and ``n%-x'' will be no less than 40%. Amendment No. 2
amended the proposed rule change by removing the language in the
proposal that gives the Exchange discretion to adjust the specified
percentage (i.e., ``n%'') to an amount less than 60% and ``n%-x'' to an
amount less than 40%. By removing this discretion, Amendment No. 2
reduces potential uncertainty about the application of the proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\14\ for approving the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, prior to the 30th day
after the date of publication of notice in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-86), as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00066 Filed 1-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17360-17362]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1211; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-40]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Memphis, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Memphis, TN,
as the West Memphis Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been
decommissioned and new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have
been developed at Memphis International Airport. This action also would
remove West Memphis Municipal Airport, West Memphis, TN from the
existing airspace surrounding Memphis International Airport, Memphis,
TN. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, Comments must be received on or before May
10, 2012. 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
7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2011-1211; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-40, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received

comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-1211; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-40) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2011-1211; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-40.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface to support new standard instrument
approach procedures developed at Memphis International Airport,
Memphis, TN. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the
decommissioning of the West Memphis NDB and cancellation of the NDB
approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport. Also, West Memphis Municipal Airport, West Memphis, AR,
would be removed from the Memphis, TN, airspace designation to
accommodate the separation of existing Class E airspace surrounding
Memphis International Airport, Memphis, TN. The establishment of the
new designator for the controlled airspace at West Memphis Municipal
Airport, West Memphis, AR, would simultaneously be coordinated with
this action.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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 proposed 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 proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Memphis
International Airport, Memphis TN.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, effective September 15, 2011,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO TN E5 Memphis, TN

Memphis International Airport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]02'33'' N., long. 89[deg]58'36'' W.)

Olive Branch, MS, Olive Branch Airport
    (Lat. 34[deg]58'44'' N., long. 89[deg]47'13'' W.)
General DeWitt Spain Airport
    (Lat. 35[deg]12'02'' N., long. 90[deg]03'14'' W.)
Elvis NDB
    (Lat. 35[deg]03'41'' N., long. 90[deg]04'18'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8-mile radius of Memphis International Airport, and within
4 miles north and 8 miles south of the 271[ordm] bearing from the
Elvis NDB extending from the 8-mile radius to 16 miles west of the
Elvis NDB, and within a 7.5-mile radius of Olive Branch Airport,
Olive Branch, MS, and within 4 miles west and 8 miles east of the
017[ordm] bearing and 4 miles west and 8 miles east of the 170[ordm]
bearing from the Olive Branch NDB extending from the 7.5-mile radius
to 16 miles northeast and south of the airport, and within a 6.4-
mile radius of General DeWitt Spain Airport; excluding that airspace
within the Millington, TN, Class E airspace area.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 14, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-7103 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31988-31990]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 95

[Docket No. 31021; Amdt. No. 520]

IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required
IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for
certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a
minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This
regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument
conditions in the affected areas.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a
specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover
points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as
prescribed in part 95.

The Rule

    The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the
prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid
coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of
frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the
need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and
operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to
published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In
addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this
amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication
date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the
user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those
considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between
these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice
and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable
and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for
making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    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.
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. For
the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

    Airspace, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2015.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015.

PART 95--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.

0
2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows:

              Revisions to IFR Altitudes & Changeover Point
              [Amendment 520 effective date June 25, 2015]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               From                           To                 MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Sec.   95.6001 Victor Routes-U.S.
    Sec.   95.6071 VOR Federal Airway V71 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighting Tiger, LA VORTAC........  Wrack, LA FIX...........       * 2200
    * 1800--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6140 VOR Federal Airway V140 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panhandle, TX VORTAC.............  Zesus, TX FIX...........       * 5800
    * 5000--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6145 VOR Federal Airway V145 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utica, NY VORTAC.................  Weepy, NY FIX...........         3400
Floor, NY FIX....................  Watertown, NY VORTAC....         3000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6195 VOR Federal Airway V195 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manteca, CA VOR/DME..............  Tracy, CA FIX...........       * 4100
    * 2900--MOCA
Tracy, CA FIX....................  * Sunol, CA FIX.........         5200
    * 4700--MCA Sunol, CA FIX, NE
     BND
Croit, CA FIX....................  * Cordd, CA FIX.........      ** 5000
    * 7200--MCA Cordd, CA FIX, N
     BND
    ** 3400--MOCA
Burrs, CA FIX....................  * Tomad, CA FIX.........      ** 6000
    * 7000--MRA
    * 7300--MCA Tomad, CA FIX, W
     BND
    ** 4600--MOCA
* Tomad, CA FIX..................  Yager, CA FIX...........     ** 11000
    * 7000--MRA
    ** 8300--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6258 VOR Federal Airway V258 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charleston, WV VORTAC............  Beckley, WV VORTAC......      #* 5000
    * 4900--MOCA
    #HVQ Restriction Unusable 140-
     142 BYD 20--BLO 9000
Beckley, WV VORTAC...............  Zooms, WV FIX...........      * 10000
    * 6300--MOCA
    * 6300--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6296 VOR Federal Airway V296 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fayetteville, NC VOR/DME.........  Wilmington, NC VORTAC...      #* 3000
    * 2100--MOCA
    #Wilmnington R-315 Unusable,
     Use Fayetteville R-131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6402 VOR Federal Airway V402 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panhandle, TX VORTAC.............  * Brisc, TX FIX.........      ** 7000
    * 7000--MCA Brisc, TX FIX, SW
     BND
    ** 5000--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec.   95.6440 VOR Federal Airway V440 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panhandle, TX VORTAC.............  * Brisc, TX FIX.........      ** 7000
    * 7000--MCA Brisc, TX FIX, SW
     BND
    ** 5000--MOCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   95.6350 Alaska VOR Federal Airway V350 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Togiak, AK NDB/DME...............  Bafin, AK FIX...........         5400
Bafin, AK FIX....................  Bethel, AK VORTAC.......
                                   SE BND..................         5400
                                   NW BND..................         2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-13823 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P