[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89171-89176]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29467]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79469; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-155]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.40
To Expand the Risk Limitation Mechanism to All Orders, Including
Complex Orders

December 5, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on November 25, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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\ 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 amend Rule 6.40 (Risk Limitation
Mechanism) to expand the risk limitation mechanism to all orders,
including Complex Orders. 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.40 (Risk Limitation
Mechanism) to expand the risk limitation mechanism to all orders,
including Complex Orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 6.62(e) defines a Complex Order as any order involving
the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different
option series in the same underlying security, for the same account,
in a ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and
less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of
executing a particular investment strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existing Risk Limitation Mechanism
    Rule 6.40 sets forth the risk-limitation system, which is designed
to help Market Makers, as well as OTP Firms and OTP Holders
(collectively, ``OTPs''), better manage risk related to quoting and
submitting orders, respectively, during periods of increased and
significant trading activity.\5\ The Exchange requires Market Makers to
utilize its risk limitation mechanism, which automatically removes a
Market Maker's quotes in all series of an options class when certain
parameter settings are breached.\6\ The Exchange permits, but does not
require, OTPs to utilize its risk limitation mechanism for certain
orders, which automatically cancels such orders when certain parameter
settings are breached.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Market Makers are included in the definition of OTPs and
therefore, unless the Exchange is discussing the quoting activity of
Market Makers, the Exchange does not distinguish Market Markers from
OTPs when discussing the risk limitation mechanisms. See Rule 1.1(q)
(defining OTP Holder as ``a natural person, in good standing, who
has been issued an OTP, or has been named as a Nominee'' that is ``a
registered broker or dealer pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or a nominee or an associated person of a
registered broker or dealer that has been approved by the Exchange
to conduct business on the Exchange's Trading Facilities''). See
also Rule 6.32(a) (defining a Market Maker as an individual
``registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making
transactions as a dealer-specialist on the Floor of the Exchange or
for the purpose of submitting quotes electronically and making
transactions as a dealer-specialist through the NYSE Arca OX
electronic trading system'').
    \6\ See Rule 6.40(b)(3), (c)(3), (d)(3) and (e)(3). See also
Commentary .04 to Rule 6.40 (providing that Market Makers are
required to utilize one of the three risk settings for their
quotes).
    \7\ See Rule 6.40(b)(1), (2); (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(2) and
Commentary .01 to Rule 6.40 (regarding the cancellation of orders
once the risk settings have been breached). See also Commentary .04
to Rule 6.40 (providing that OTPs may avail themselves of one of the
three risk limitation mechanisms for certain of their orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 6.40, the Exchange establishes a time period
during which the NYSE Arca System (``System'') \8\ calculates for
quotes and orders, respectively: (1) The number of trades executed by
the Market Maker or OTP in a particular options class; (2) the volume
of contracts traded by the Market Maker or OTP in a particular options
class; or (3) the aggregate percentage of the Market Maker's quoted
size or OTP's order size(s) executed in a particular options class
(collectively, the ``risk settings'').\9\ When a Market Maker or OTP
has breached its risk settings (i.e., has traded more than the contract
or volume limit or cumulative percentage limit of a class during the
specified measurement interval), the System will cancel all of the
Market Maker's quotes or the OTP's open orders in that class until the
Market Maker or OTP notifies the Exchange it will resume submitting
quotes or orders.\10\ The temporary suspension of quotes or orders from
the market that results when the risk settings are triggered is meant
to operate as a safety valve that enables Market Makers and/or OTPs to
re-evaluate their positions before requesting to re-enter the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange proposes to define ``System'' as a shorthand
reference to the term ``NYSE Arca System'' and replace uses of the
term ``NYSE Arca System'' with the term ``System'' throughout the
rule text. See proposed Rule 6.40(a),(e), (f), and Commentaries .01,
.02, .05 and .06 to the Rule.
    \9\ See Rule 6.40(a)-(e) (settings forth the three risk
limitation mechanisms available: Transaction-Based, Volume-Based and
Percentage-Based). A Market Maker may activate one Risk Limitation
Mechanism for its quotes (which is required) and a different Risk
Limitation Mechanism for its orders (which is optional), even if
both are activated for the same class. See also Commentary .04 to
Rule 6.40.
    \10\ See Commentaries .01 and .02 to Rule 6.40 (requiring that a
Market Maker or OTP request that it be re-enabled after a breach of
its risk settings). In the event that a Market Maker or OTP
experiences multiple, successive triggers of its risk settings, the
Exchange would cancel all of the quotes or Applicable Orders--as
opposed to cancelling only those in the option class (underlying
symbol) in which the risk settings were triggered. See Rule 6.40(f)
and Commentary .02 to Rule 6.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Expansion of Risk Limitation Mechanism to All Orders
    Currently, OTPs may voluntarily utilize risk settings for PNP
Orders, PNP-Blind Orders, PNP-Light Orders and Liquidity Adding Orders
(``ALO'') submitted via ArcaDirect, which are defined as ``Applicable
Orders''.\11\ Given the importance of risk settings in today's trading
environment, the Exchange proposes to expand the availability of the
risk settings to all orders traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Commentary .07 to Rule 6.40. For purposes of risk
settings relating to orders, the Exchange does not distinguish
Market Maker from OTPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that expanding the availability of the risk
settings to all orders would reduce the likelihood of unintended trades
and would enable OTPs to re-evaluate their positions before requesting
to re-enter the market if a risk setting is triggered. The proposed
expansion would, for example, prevent the execution of a large set of
orders that are improperly priced for any number of reasons (i.e.,
because of a malfunctioning algorithm, the orders are left over from
the prior day, etc.). By preventing the execution of such trades, the
Exchange may help parties (including clearing members) avoid large
trading losses. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed expansion of
the risk settings to all orders would allow OTPs to better manage the
potential risks of multiple executions against an OTP's trading
interest that, in today's highly automated and electronic trading
environment, can occur simultaneously across multiple series and
multiple option classes. Consistent with the ability to better manage
risk, the Exchange anticipates that the proposed changes would enhance
the Exchange's overall market quality as a result of narrowed quote
widths and increased liquidity for series traded on the Exchange. This
proposed expansion is also being made, in part, to be responsive to
requests from OTPs that engage in high-volume trading in a

multitude of series and classes. The Exchange believes that the
proposal to make the risk settings available for all orders would
assist OTPs in providing a means to calibrate and monitor their risk
exposure on all orders. As is the case today, the proposed availability
of risk settings for all of an OTP's orders would not be mandated, but
risk settings would continue to be mandated for all Market Maker
quotes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Commentary .04 (a) and (b) to Rule 6.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
6.40(a)(1) to provide that the Exchange would maintain separate ``trade
counters'' for each of the following scenarios: (i) When any order,
including a single-leg order or any leg of a Complex Order submitted by
an OTP is executed in any series in a specified class; and (ii) when a
Market Maker quote is executed in any series in an appointed class.\13\
The Exchange proposes this rule text to replace the current rule text
that covers the Applicable Orders of non-Market Makers and Market
Makers, respectively.\14\ Because Market Makers are also OTPs, and
because the operation of the risk settings for orders are identical for
all OTPs, the Exchange proposes to streamline the rule text--in Rule
6.40(a)(1) and throughout the Rule--by removing reference to ``non-
Market Makers'' as superfluous and potentially confusing.\15\ Instead
of separately addressing risk settings for orders that are available to
Market Makers and non-Market Makers, the proposed rule would simply
address the option as being available to all OTPs. Proposed Rule
6.40(a)(1) would further provide that for each of these scenarios, the
trade counters would be incremented every time a trade is executed, in
accordance with Commentary .07 to Rule 6.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 6.40(a)(1)(i)-(ii).
    \14\ The Exchange also proposes the non-substantive modification
to replace uses of the term ``shall'' with the term ``will''
throughout the rule text. See generally proposed Rule 6.40.
    \15\ See supra note 5. See also proposed Rule 6.40(a)(1),
(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(1) (collapsing into one
paragraph the separate paragraphs in the current Rule relating to
risk settings for orders sent by Market Maker and non-Market Makers
and updating cross-references to condensed rule text).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and
(f) to make similar changes so that each of these paragraphs would have
two sub-paragraphs that would be parallel to the proposed changes to
Rule 6.40(a)(1):
     The first sub-paragraph of each paragraph would address
how the specific risk setting would be applied to an OTP's orders,
which would be the substantive change, as further described below.
These proposed sub-paragraphs would replace current rule text in each
paragraph governing how the specific risk setting would apply to a non-
Market Maker's or Market Maker's Applicable Orders. Accordingly,
current sub-paragraph (2) to each of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and
(f) would be deleted.
    The proposed second sub-paragraph of each paragraph would address
how the specific risk setting would be applied to a Market Marker's
quotes, as further described below. Accordingly, current sub-paragraph
(3) to each of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) would be re-
numbered as sub-paragraph (2).
    In addition to the substantive change to expand risk settings to
all orders, the Exchange further proposes to make non-substantive
amendments to each of the proposed sub-paragraphs to paragraphs (b),
(c), and (d). The Exchange believes that the proposed rule text would
simplify and streamline the rule by describing a risk setting being
triggered when an OTP's orders or Market Marker's quotes ``have
traded'' rather than using the more cumbersome text that an order or
quote has been traded ``against.'' When addressing an OTP's orders, the
proposed rules would provide that the risk setting would be applicable
to all orders in a specific class. When addressing a Market Maker's
quotes, the proposed rules would provide that the risk setting would be
applicable to all of the Market Maker's quotes in an appointed class.
For each risk setting, the proposed new text would provide as follows.
     The Transaction-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism, described
in Rule 6.40(b), would be triggered under the following conditions:
    [cir] When a trade counter indicates that within a time period
specified by the Exchange, ``n'' executions of an OTP's open orders
have traded in a specific class (proposed Rule 6.40(b)(1)); or
    [cir] when a trade counter indicates that within a time period
specified by the Exchange, ``n'' executions of a Market Marker's quotes
have traded in an appointed class (proposed Rule 6.40(b)(2)).
     The Volume-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism, described in
Rule 6.40(c), would be triggered under the following conditions:
    [cir] When a trade counter indicates that within a time period
specified by the Exchange, ``k'' contracts of an OTP's open orders have
traded in a specific class (proposed Rule 6.40(c)(1)); or
    [cir] when a trade counter indicates that within a time period
specified by the Exchange, ``k'' contracts of a Market Maker's quotes
have traded in an appointed class (proposed Rule 6.40(c)(2)).
     The Percentage-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism, described
in Rule 6.40(d), would be triggered under the following conditions:
    [cir] When a trade counter has calculated that within a time period
specified by the Exchange, ``p'' percentage of an OTP's open orders
have traded in a specific class (proposed Rule 6.40(d)(1)); or
    [cir] when a trade counter has calculated that within a time period
specified by the Exchange, ``p'' percentage of a Market Maker's quotes
have traded in an appointed class (proposed Rule 6.40(d)(2)).
    The Exchange also proposes clarifying changes to how the
Percentage-Based Risk Limitation Mechanism operates. The Exchange
proposes to modify Rule 6.40(d)(2)(i)-(ii) to make clear that the trade
counter would first calculate, for each series of an option class,
``the percentage(s) of an OTP's order size(s) or a Market Maker's quote
size that is executed on each side of the market, including both
displayed and non-displayed size,'' and would then ``sum the overall
percentages of the size(s) for the entire option class to calculate the
`p' percentage.'' The proposed changes are designed to account for the
fact that OTPs may submit multiple orders on each side of the market
that may be counted by the risk settings (whereas Market Makers have
only one quote on each side of the market) and to reduce excess
verbiage to streamline and condense the rule text, which the Exchange
believes adds clarity and transparency to the Rule.
Proposed Changes Regarding Routable Orders
    Because the proposed expansion of risk settings for orders would
include routable orders, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.40 to
address the counting and cancellation of such orders (or unexecuted
portions thereof). First, the Exchange proposes to add rule text to
Commentary .07 to Rule 6.40 to provide that executions of routable
orders on away markets would be considered by a trade counter once the
execution report is received by the Exchange.\16\ The Exchange also

proposes to amend Commentary .07 to Rule 6.40 to provide that
executions of each leg of a Complex Order would be considered by a
trade counter as an individual transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange also proposes to delete as inapplicable the
rule text in Commentary .07 to Rule 6.40 providing that ``[o]nly
executions against order types specified by the Exchange via Trader
Update and against quotes of Market Makers shall be considered by a
trade counter.'' The Exchange likewise proposes to delete the rule
text from Commentary .07 to Rule 6.40 that defines ``Applicable
Orders,'' given that this limitation no longer applies. In this
regard, the Exchange proposes to delete reference to ``Applicable
Orders'' throughout the rule text and, where pertinent, and [sic] to
replace uses of the term ``Applicable Orders'' with ``orders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding cancellations, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary
.01 to Rule 6.40 to provide that once the risk settings have been
triggered, pursuant to paragraphs (e) and (f) of the Rule, the System
would automatically generate a ``bulk cancel'' message to cancel Market
Maker quotes and electronic orders, or portions thereof, that have not
been routed to away markets, excluding intraday and prior day Good-
Till-Cancel (``GTC''), All-or-None (``AON''), and orders entered in
response to an electronic auction that are valid only for the duration
of the auction (``GTX'').\17\ The Exchange has determined that it would
not cancel GTC, AON, or GTX orders because these order types are
typically retail orders which, if automatically cancelled by the
Exchange, could cause an operational issue for any firm that entered
the order(s) (i.e., exposing a firm to the risk of a missed execution
on an order that has come due).\18\ Given these potential operational
issues, and for the protection of investors and the investing public,
the Exchange has determined to exempt these order types from automatic
cancellation when the risk settings are triggered.\19\ The Exchange
also proposes to amend Commentary .01 to Rule 6.40 to provide that
``[o]rders and quotes residing in the Consolidated Book received prior
to processing of the bulk cancel message may trade. Any unexecuted
portion of an order subject to a `bulk cancel' message that had routed
away, but returned unexecuted, will be immediately cancelled.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In light of this change, the Exchange proposes to delete
the following rule text in Commentary .01 to Rule 6.40 as no longer
applicable: ``The bulk cancel message shall be processed by the NYSE
Arca System in time priority with any other quote or order message
received by the NYSE Arca System. Any Applicable Orders or quotes
that matched with a Market Maker's quote or a Market Maker's or non-
Market Maker's Applicable Order and were received by the NYSE Arca
System prior to the receipt of the bulk cancel message shall be
automatically executed.'' See id.
    \18\ See, e.g., Rule 6.62(n) (defining GTC as buy or sell orders
that remain in force until the order is filled, cancelled or the
option contract expires); (d)(4) (defining AON orders as a Market or
Limit Order that is to be executed in its entirety or not at all).
    \19\ The Exchange notes that the trade counters would be
incremented every time a GTC, AON or GTX order is executed, subject
to proposed Commentary .07. See proposed Rule 6.40(a)(1).
    \20\ Relatedly, the Exchange proposes to delete the following
rule text in Commentary .01 to Rule 6.40: ``Applicable Orders or
quotes received by the NYSE Arca System after receipt of the bulk
cancel message shall not be executed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the foregoing changes to paragraphs (e) and (f) of
Rule 6.40, the Exchange also proposes to amend these paragraphs to
address the action (i.e., cancellations) that the System would effect
upon the triggering of the risk settings to account for the proposed
amendments to Commentary .01 to the Rule. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to modify sub-paragraph (1) to both paragraphs (e) and (f) to
provide that if a risk setting is triggered, the System would
automatically cancel an OTP's orders, ``except as provided in
Commentary .01 to this Rule.'' Finally, the Exchange proposes to make
additional conforming changes to Commentary .02 to Rule 6.40 to specify
that once the risk settings have been breached, any new orders (or
quotes) would not be accepted until the OTP or Market Maker contacts
the Exchange and requests to be re-enabled.
Proposed Changes to Persistence of Risk Settings for Orders
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Commentary .04 to Rule 6.40 to
specify the persistence of the risk settings, once activated, by an OTP
for orders to conform this Commentary to the changes described above to
delineate risk settings between an OTP's orders and a Market Maker's
quotes. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to divide Commentary .04
into two paragraphs to make it easier to navigate--paragraph (a) would
address the persistence of risk settings for quotes, and paragraph (b)
would address the persistence of risk settings for orders.
    Current Commentary .04 to Rule 6.40 provides that an OTP must
activate its risk settings for orders on a daily basis. The Exchange
proposes to amend this Commentary .04 to specify that ``[o]nce an OTP
activates a Risk Limitation Mechanism for its orders in a specified
class, the mechanism and the settings established will remain active
unless, and until, the OTP deactivates the Risk Limitation Mechanism or
changes the settings.'' \21\ While the risk settings for orders remain
an optional feature, the Exchange believes this change would enable
each OTP to calibrate its settings as needed, as opposed to re-
establishing the settings on a daily basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Commentary .04(b) to Rule 6.40 (specifying
that, ``[t]o be effective, an OTP must activate a Risk Limitation
Mechanism, and corresponding settings, for orders in a specified
class''). Regarding the risk settings for quotes, the Exchange
proposes to delete as inapplicable rule text that indicates that a
Market Maker may deactivate its risk settings for quotes, as this
functionality is mandated by the Exchange. See proposed Commentary
.04(a) to Rule 6.40. The Exchange believes removing this language
would add clarity and consistency to the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Modifications to Parameters for Each Risk Limitation Mechanism
    The Exchange proposes to adjust the minimum and maximum parameters
for the Risk Limitation Mechanism as set forth in Commentary .03 to the
Rule. The current Rule provides that the Exchange would not exceed the
following minimum and maximum parameters, applicable to quotes and
orders:
     Minimum of 1 and maximum of 100 for transaction-based risk
setting;
     Minimum of 20 and a maximum of 5,000 for volume-based risk
setting; and
     Minimum of 100 and a maximum of 2,000 for percentage-based
risk setting.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing parameters have been in place since 2012 and the
Exchange has not modified or increased these parameters in the past
four years.\23\ Since 2012, the markets have experienced more
volatility and fragmentation. To account for these changes, as well as
the ever-increasing automation, speed and volume transacted in today's
electronic trading environment, the Exchange proposes to modify the
minimum and maximum parameters, applicable to quotes and orders, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67714 (August 22,
2012), 77 FR 52098 (August 28, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-87).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Minimum of 3 and maximum of 2,000 for the transaction-
based setting;
     Minimum of 20 and a maximum of 500,000 for volume-based
setting: And
     Minimum of 100 and a maximum of 200,000 for percentage-
based setting.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this proposal establishes the outside parameters of
allowable settings, Rule 6.40 would still obligate the Exchange to
announce via Trader Update ``any applicable minimum, maximum and/or
default settings for the Risk Limitation Mechanisms,'' which would
afford Market Makers and OTPs the opportunity to adjust their own risk
settings within the announced parameters.\25\ The Exchange further
believes the proposed adjustments to the minimum/maximum parameters
would enable the Exchange to strike the appropriate balance to ensure
that risk settings may be established at a level that is consistent
with existing market conditions, which would enable the risk settings
to operate in the manner

intended. The Exchange believes that setting the parameters within this
broad range would provide OTPs with ample flexibility in setting their
tolerance for risk. For example, OTPs with a lower risk tolerance may
opt to select a lower threshold within the range established by the
Exchange, thereby optimizing the protection afforded by this proposed
rule change, whereas OTPs with a higher risk tolerance may select the
maximum allowable parameter afforded by the proposed rule change.
Moreover, while the Exchange retains discretion with respect to the
levels at which it could adjust these settings, the Exchange would not
be permitted to adjust the settings below the minimum or above the
maximum proposed, which, the Exchange believes would ensure that the
settings are at all times within a reasonable range. Finally, given
that the risk settings would now be available for all order types, the
Exchange believes it would be prudent to provide ample flexibility for
setting the maximum thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra notes 22 and 24 (rule text remains unchanged in
current and proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date
of the proposed rule change to expand the availability of the Risk
Limitation Mechanism to all orders, which implementation will be no
later than 90 days after the effectiveness of this rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\26\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\
in particular, in that it is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OTPs are vulnerable to the risk from a system or other error or a
market event that may cause them to send a large number of orders or
receive multiple, automatic executions before they can adjust their
order exposure in the market. Without adequate risk management tools,
such as the proposed expanded risk settings for orders, OTPs may opt to
reduce the amount of order flow and liquidity that they provide to the
market, which could undermine the quality of the markets available to
market participants. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change to expand the availability of the risk settings to all orders
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market by providing OTPs with greater control and flexibility over
setting their risk tolerance and more protection over risk exposure, if
the market moves in an unexpected direction. The proposed expansion of
the risk settings to all orders would promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it would help OTPs not only avoid
transacting against their interests but would also reduce the potential
for executions at erroneous prices, which should encourage OTPs to
submit additional order flow and liquidity to the Exchange.
    This proposed expansion, which was specifically requested by some
OTPs, would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, and processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in, securities as it will be
available to all OTPs for all orders entered on the Exchange. In
addition, the expanded risk settings may prevent the execution of
erroneously priced trades, which would help parties (including clearing
members) avoid large trading losses, thereby fostering cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
and processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in, securities.
    The Exchange believes the proposed adjustments to the minimum/
maximum parameters for each risk limitation mechanism, which have not
been increased since 2012, are consistent with the Act because they
would allow the Exchange to strike the appropriate balance to ensure
that risk settings could be established at a level that is consistent
with existing market conditions, which would enable the risk settings
to operate in the manner intended. The Exchange believes that setting
the parameters within the broad range, as proposed, would provide OTPs
with ample flexibility in setting their tolerance for risk. For
example, OTPs with a lower risk tolerance may opt to select a lower
threshold within the range established by the Exchange, thereby
optimizing the protection afforded by this proposed rule change,
whereas OTPs with a higher risk tolerance may select the maximum
allowable parameter afforded by the proposed rule change. Moreover,
because the Exchange would not be permitted to adjust the settings
below the minimum or above the maximum proposed, the settings should
remain at all times within a reasonable range. Finally, given that the
risk settings would now be available for all order types, the Exchange
believes it would be prudent to provide ample flexibility for setting
the maximum thresholds.
    Consistent with the ability to better manage risk, the Exchange
anticipates that the proposed enhancement to the existing Risk
Limitation Mechanism would likewise enhance the Exchange's overall
market quality as a result of narrowed quote widths and increased
liquidity for series traded on the Exchange, which would benefit
investors and the public interest because they receive better prices
and because it lowers volatility in the options market. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interests because it would permit OTPs to
better manage the potential risks of multiple executions against an
OTP's proprietary interest that, in today's highly automated and
electronic trading environment, can occur simultaneously across
multiple series and multiple option classes.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to
streamline and clarify the rule text, including updated cross
references that conform rule text to proposed changes, promotes just
and equitable principles of trade, fosters cooperation and coordination
among persons engaged in facilitating securities transactions, and
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market by ensuring that members, regulators and the public can more
easily navigate the Exchange's rulebook and better understand the
defined terms used by the Exchange.

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. The Exchange is proposing a
market enhancement that would provide OTPs with greater control and
flexibility over setting their risk tolerance and more protection over
risk exposure, if the market moves in an unexpected direction. The
Exchange believes the proposal would provide market participants with
additional protection from unintended executions. The proposal is
structured to offer the same

enhancement to all OTPs, regardless of size, and would not impose a
competitive burden on any participant. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed enhancement to the existing risk limitation mechanism
would impose a burden on competing options exchanges. Rather, the
availability of this mechanism may foster more competition.
Specifically, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. When an exchange offers enhanced functionality that
distinguishes it from the competition and participants find it useful,
it has been the Exchange's experience that competing exchanges will
move to adopt similar functionality. Thus, the Exchange believes that
this type of competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the market
place as a whole as it can result in enhanced processes, functionality,
and technologies.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \28\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\29\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \30\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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-NYSEArca-2016-155 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-NYSEArca-2016-155. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-155, and
should be submitted on or before December 30, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29467 Filed 12-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 110)]
[Notices]
[Page 32803]
[DOCID:fr09jn10-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0418]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel JONCADE

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel JONCADE as
required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on May 11,
2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-0418 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed under Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued for the
offshore supply vessel JONCADE, O.N. 1224528. Full compliance with 72
COLREGS and Inland Rules Act would hinder the vessel's ability to
maneuver within close proximity of offshore platforms. The forward
masthead light may be located on the top forward portion of the
pilothouse 18.92[min] above the hull. Placing the forward masthead
light at the height as required by Annex I, paragraph 2(a) of the 72
COLREGS would result in a masthead light location highly susceptible to
damage when working in close proximity to offshore platforms.
Furthermore the horizontal distance between the forward and aft
masthead lights may be 16.1'. Placing the aft masthead light at the
horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required by
Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS and Annex I, Section 84.05(a)
of the Inland Rules Act would result in an aft masthead light location
directly over the aft cargo deck where it would interfere with loading
and unloading operations.
    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed under Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued for the
offshore supply vessel JONCADE, O.N. 1224528. The Certificate of
Alternative Compliance allows for the vertical placement of the forward
masthead light to deviate from requirements set forth in Annex I,
paragraph 2(a) of 72 COLREGS. In addition the Certificate of
Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal separation of the
forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the requirements of
Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of
the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: 17 MAY 2010.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-13802 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3993-3996]
[DOCID:fr26ja10-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2008-0307; FRL-8968-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Montana
on November 1, 2006 and November 20, 2007. The revisions are to the
Administrative Rules of Montana; they include minor editorial and
grammatical changes, updates to the citations and references to federal
and state laws and regulations, other minor changes to conform to
federal regulations, and updates to links to sources of information.
This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 29, 2010 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 25, 2010. If adverse
comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2008-0307, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2008-0307. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Summary of SIP Revisions
III. EPA's Review of the State of Montana's November 1, 2006 and
November 20, 2007 Submittals
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless
the context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI

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

II. Summary of SIP Revisions

    A. On November 1, 2006 the State of Montana submitted formal
revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) (hereafter, the ``2006
SIP revisions''). The 2006 SIP revisions contain amendments to the
following sections of the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM):
17.8.101, 17.8.102, 17.8.103, 17.8.302, 17.8.744, 17.8.767, 17.8.801,
17.8.802, 17.8.818, 17.8.902, 17.8.1002, 17.8.1701, 17.8.1702,
17.8.1703, 17.8.1704, 17.8.1705, 17.8.1710, 17.8.1711, 17.8.1712, and
17.8.1713.
    B. On November 20, 2007 the State of Montana submitted formal
revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) (hereafter, the ``2007
SIP revisions''). The 2007 SIP revisions contain amendments to the
following sections of the ARM: 17.8.102, 17.8.103, 17.8.302(1)(d),
17.8.602, 17.8.767 with the exception of subsection (1)(c), 17.8.801,
17.8.802 with the exception of subsection (1)(d), 17.8.818, 17.8.901,
17.8.902 with the exception of subsection (1)(a), 17.8.1002 with the
exception of subsection (1)(a), 17.8.1007, 17.8.1102, and 17.8.1402.

III. EPA's Review of the State of Montana's November 1, 2006 and
November 20, 2007 Submittals

A. 2006 SIP Revisions

    A number of the 2006 SIP revisions are strictly administrative;
they make minor editorial and grammatical changes, update the citations
and references to federal and state laws and regulations, and update
links to sources of information. The following are the 2006 rule
revisions that fall in this category: ARM sections 17.8.101, 17.8.102,
and 17.8.103. All of the revisions are approvable. However, the 2007
revisions supersede the 2006 revisions to ARM sections 17.8.102 and
17.8.103. Therefore, in this action we are approving ARM section
17.8.101 from the 2006 SIP revisions, but not 17.8.102 and 103. We
discuss ARM sections 17.8.102 and 103 further in the section below that
addresses the 2007 SIP revisions.
    The 2006 SIP revisions include changes to ARM sections 17.8.801 and
17.8.818. These changes are approvable. The revision to 17.8.801 adds
the pollutant Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), at 10 tons per year
(tpy), to the table ``Pollutant and Emissions Rate'' within the
definition of ``Significant'' at ARM 17.8.801(27). This provision
defines pollutant significance levels within Montana's prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) regulations, and the addition of
H2S at 10 tpy is consistent with EPA's PSD regulations. See
40 CFR 51.166(b)(23). The revision to 17.8.818 adds ``hydrogen sulfide
(H2S)--0.2 [micro]g/m3, one hour average'' at
17.8.818(7)(a)(ix). This establishes an air quality impact level below
which the State may exempt a proposed PSD major stationary source or
major modification from certain monitoring requirements. This too is
consistent with EPA's PSD regulations. See 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5). The
State made additional changes to ARM sections 17.8.801 and 17.8.818 as
part of the 2007 SIP revisions. We discuss these changes below.
    The EPA is not taking action on the 2006 revisions to ARM sections
17.8.302, 17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902, and 17.8.1002. These revisions
reference EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). Because the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated CAMR on February 8, 2008 (see
New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574), EPA will not act on these revisions.
    We are not taking action on the revisions to ARM sections
17.8.1701, 17.8.1702, 17.8.1703, 17.8.1704, 17.8.1705, 17.8.1710,
17.8.1711, 17.8.1712, 17.8.1713, and 17.8.744, which establish a system
of registration of oil and gas well facilities and provide for the
exclusion of eligible facilities from Montana air quality permitting
requirements. These revisions will be addressed in a future action.

B. 2007 SIP Revisions

    A number of the 2007 SIP revisions are strictly administrative;
they make minor editorial and grammatical changes, update the citations
and references to federal and state laws and regulations, and update
links to sources of information. The following are the 2007 rule
revisions that fall in this category: ARM sections 17.8.102, 17.8.103,
17.8.302(1)(d), 17.8.602, 17.8.801, 17.8.818, 17.8.901, 17.8.1007, and
17.8.1102. All of the revisions are approvable. As noted above, the
2007 revisions to ARM sections 17.8.102 and 103 supersede the 2006
revisions to these rules. Therefore, EPA is approving the 2007
revisions. As indicated, both the 2006 and 2007 revisions to ARM
sections 17.8.801 and 17.8.818 are approvable. The 2006 revisions are
substantive; the 2007 revisions are administrative. EPA is approving
both revisions but is only incorporating by reference the later version
of the rules, which reflect both the 2006 and 2007 revisions.
    The EPA is not taking action on the 2007 revisions to ARM sections
17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902, and 17.8.1002. These revisions reference
EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). Because the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit vacated CAMR on February 8, 2008 (see New Jersey
v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574), EPA will not act on these revisions.
    We are not taking action on the revision to ARM section 17.8.1402.
The State has indicated that this revision may be repealed; therefore,
action will not be taken at this time.

IV. Final Action

    The EPA is approving revisions that the State submitted on November
1, 2006. The Montana Board of Environmental Review adopted these
revisions on July 21, 2006 and they became effective on August 11,
2006. The EPA is approving the 2006 revisions to ARM sections 17.8.101,
17.8.801, and 17.8.818. The EPA is not taking action on the 2006
revisions to ARM sections 17.8.302, 17.8.744,

17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902, 17.8.1002, 17.8.1701, 17.8.1702,
17.8.1703, 17.8.1704, 17.8.1705, 17.8.1710, 17.8.1711, 17.8.1712, and
17.8.1713.
    The EPA is approving revisions that the State submitted on November
20, 2007. The Montana Board of Environmental Review adopted these
amendments on September 28, 2007 and they became effective on October
26, 2007. The EPA is approving the 2007 revisions to ARM sections
17.8.102, 17.8.103, 17.8.302(1)(d), 17.8.602, 17.8.801, 17.8.818,
17.8.901, 17.8.1007, and 17.8.1102. The EPA is not taking action on the
2007 revisions to ARM sections 17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902, 17.8.1002,
and 17.8.1402.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments; we are merely approving administrative and other
minor changes to Montana's air rules. However, in the ``Proposed
Rules'' section of today's Federal Register publication, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revisions if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective March 29, 2010 without further notice unless the Agency
receives adverse comments by February 25, 2010. If the EPA receives
adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA
will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on
the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, 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. This 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.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 29, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 25, 2009.
Andrew M. Gaydosh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart BB--Montana

0
2. Section 52.1370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(68) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (68) Revisions to the State Implementation plan which were
submitted by the State of Montana on November 1, 2006 and November 20,
2007. The revisions are to the Administrative Rules of Montana; they
make minor editorial and grammatical changes, update the citations and
references to federal and state laws and regulations, make other minor
changes to conform to federal regulations, and update links to sources
of information.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) section 17.8.101,
Definitions; effective August 11, 2006.
    (B) Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) sections: 17.8.102,
Incorporation by Reference--Publication Dates; 17.8.103, Incorporation
by Reference and Availability of Referenced Documents; 17.8.302(1)(d),
Incorporation by Reference; 17.8.602, Incorporation by Reference;
17.8.801, Definitions; 17.8.818, Review of Major Stationary Sources and
Major Modifications--Source Applicability and Exemptions; 17.8.901,
Definitions; 17.8.1007, Baseline for Determining Credit for Emissions
and Air Quality Offsets; and, 17.8.1102, Incorporation by Reference;
all effective October 26, 2007.

[FR Doc. 2010-1386 Filed 1-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 43171-43172]
[DOCID:fr26au09-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor

Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension: Rule 35d-1, SEC File No. 270-491, OMB Control No. 3235-
0548.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Act''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 35d-1 (17 CFR 270.35d-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) generally requires that investment
companies with certain names invest at least 80% of their assets
according to what their names suggests. The rule provides that an
affected investment company must either adopt this 80% requirement as a
fundamental policy or adopt a policy to provide notice to shareholders
at least 60 days prior to any change in its 80% investment policy. This
preparation and delivery of the notice to existing shareholders is a
collection of information within the meaning of the Act.
    The Commission estimates that there are 8,681 open-end and closed-
end management investment companies and series that have descriptive
names that are governed by the rule. The Commission estimates that of
these 8,681 investment companies, approximately 29 provide prior notice
to their shareholders of a change in their investment policies per
year. The Commission estimates that the annual burden associated with
the notice requirement of the rule is 20 hours per response. The total
burden hours for Rule 35d-1 is 580 per year in the aggregate (29
responses x 20 hours per response). Estimates of average burden hours
are made solely for the purposes of the Act, and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms.
    The collection of information under Rule 35d-1 is mandatory. The
information provided under Rule 35d-1 is not kept confidential. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    Please direct general comments regarding the above information to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta
Ahmed at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher,
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 18, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20528 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 35104-35105]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Aphton Corp., Apollo International of Delaware,
Inc., Applewoods, Inc., Applied Nanoscience, Inc., Aquacell
Technologies, Inc. (n/k/a Greencore Technology, Inc.), Aquagenix, Inc.,
Aquapro Corp., Asconi Corp., Asia Electronics Holding Co., Inc., Asian
Star Development, Inc., Associated Golf Management, Inc. (n/k/a Delta
Mining & Exploration Corp.), Avalon Borden Companies, Inc., Avasoft,
Inc., Aviation Holdings Group, Inc., and Azur Holdings, Inc.; Order of
Suspension of Trading

June 17, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Aphton Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended December 31, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Apollo International of Delaware, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Applewoods, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended March 31, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Applied Nanoscience, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since February 11, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Aquacell Technologies, Inc. (n/k/a Greencore Technology, Inc.) because
it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30,
2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Aquagenix, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended December 31, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information

concerning the securities of Aquapro Corp. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Asconi Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Asia Electronics Holding Co., Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 1997.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Asian Star Development, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Associated Golf Management, Inc. (n/k/a Delta Mining & Exploration
Corp.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since February 8,
2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Avalon Borden Companies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended November 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Avasoft, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Aviation Holdings Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Azur Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended October 31, 2006.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on June 17, 2010, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 30, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15040 Filed 6-17-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		May 4, 2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT:	April 30, 2015, Meeting with ARB Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on April 30, 2015 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014.        ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders Chris Gallenstein Craig Segall Larry Hunsacker Anny Huang

EPA  Amy Zimpfer Ben Machol Anita Lee Ray Saracino

Attachments

111(d) Docket Memo Attachment 043015 Agenda 111(d) Docket Memo Attachment 043015_EPA vs ARB-CEC 4-23-15 111(d) Docket Memo Attachment 043015_Rule 111 (d) Compare ARB vs  EPA (Updated)


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48504-48505]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2299-082]

Notice of Amended Application Tendered for Filing With the
Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and
Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments; Turlock Irrigation
District and Modesto Irrigation District, California

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2299-082.
    c. Date Filed: October 11, 2017.
    d. Applicant: Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation
District, California.
    e. Name of Project: Don Pedro Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: The Don Pedro Project is located on the Tuolumne River
in Tuolumne County, California. Portions of the project occupy public
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 79 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Steve Boyd, Turlock Irrigation District, 333
East Canal Drive, Turlock, California 95381-0949,<PHONE_NUMBER>; and
Anna Brathwaite, Modesto Irrigation District, P.O. Box 4060, Modesto,
CA 95352,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description:

Don Pedro Dam and Reservoir

    The primary project feature is Don Pedro Dam, a 1,900-foot-long and
580-foot-high zoned earth and rockfill structure. The top of the dam is
at elevation 855 feet mean sea level (msl).
    Don Pedro Reservoir extends upstream for approximately 24 miles at
the normal maximum water surface elevation of 830 feet (msl). The
surface area of the reservoir at the 830-foot elevation is
approximately 12,960 acres and the gross storage capacity is 2,030,000
acre-feet.

Don Pedro Spillway

    Don Pedro Spillway is divided into two sections, one gated and one
ungated, located immediately adjacent to one another in a saddle area
west of the main dam. The gated spillway section is 135-feet-long, with
a permanent crest elevation of 800 feet, and includes three radial
gates each 45 feet wide by 30 feet high. The ungated spillway is an
ogee section 995 feet long with a crest elevation of 830 feet msl and a
top of abutment elevation of 855 feet msl. The spillway capacity at a
reservoir water level of 850 feet msl is 472,500 cubic feet per second
(cfs). Flow releases over the ungated ogee-crest section of the
spillway have occurred only once since project construction, in early
January 1997. Flows at the spillway are released to Gasburg Creek,
which in turn flows into Twin Gulch, and then back into the Tuolumne
River approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the main dam.

Outlet Works

    The project facilities include a set of outlet works located at the
left (east) abutment of the main dam. The outlet works consist of three
individual gate housings, each containing two 4-feet-by-5-feet slide
gates. The outlet works are situated in a 3,500-foot-long concrete
lined tunnel that originally served as the water diversion tunnel
during project construction. The inlet to the tunnel has an invert
elevation of 342 feet msl and the outlet, which is located
approximately 400 feet downstream of the powerhouse, has an invert of
310 feet. At a reservoir water surface elevation of 830 feet msl, the
total hydraulic capacity of the outlet works is 7,500 cfs.

Power Intake and Tunnel

    Flows are delivered from the reservoir to the powerhouse via a
2,960-foot-long power tunnel located in the left (east) abutment of the
main dam. The tunnel transitions from an 18-foot 6-inch concrete-lined
section to a 16-foot steel-lined section. Emergency closure can be
provided by a 21-foot-high by 12-foot-wide fixed-wheel gate that is
operated from a chamber at the top of the gate shaft. Flows from the
power tunnel are delivered to the four-unit powerhouse and a hollow-jet
control valve in the powerhouse.

Powerhouse

    Located immediately downstream of the main dam, the Don Pedro
powerhouse contains four turbine-generator units and a 72-inch hollow
jet valve. The reinforced-concrete powerhouse is 171 feet long, 110
feet high and 148 feet wide. It houses four Francis turbine generator
units with a nameplate capacity of 168 megawatts (MW) and a maximum
output at optimum conditions of approximately 203 MW. Combined
hydraulic capacity of the four units under maximum head is
approximately 5,500 cfs.
    The powerhouse also contains a 72-inch hollow jet valve located in
the east end of the powerhouse with a centerline elevation at discharge
of 299 feet msl. The hydraulic capacity of the hollow jet valve is
3,000 cfs. While turbine Units 1 through 3 discharge directly to the
river channel, Unit 4 discharges to the outlet works tunnel
approximately 250 feet upstream of the tunnel outlet. Water to Unit 4
is delivered through a bifurcation from the hollow jet valve pipe. With
Unit 4 in operation, the hollow-jet valve capacity is reduced from
3,000 cfs to 800 cfs. The powerhouse tailwater during turbine operation
varies from a low elevation of about 298 feet msl to a high elevation
of about 303 feet msl under normal operating conditions. The tailwater
elevation at the outlet works tunnel is approximately 300 feet msl.

Switchyard

    The project switchyard is located atop the powerhouse at elevation
340 feet msl. The switchyard provides power delivery and electrical
protection to the Districts' transmission systems. The switchyard
includes isolated phase buses, circuit breakers, and four transformers
that raise the 13.8 kilovolt (kV) generator voltage to 69 kV
transmission voltage.

Gasburg Creek Dike

    Don Pedro dam spillway discharges into Gasburg Creek. Gasburg Creek
dike is located near the downstream end of the spillway, and directs
flows from Gasburg Creek into Twin Gulch where spillway discharges join
the Tuolumne River approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the Don Pedro
powerhouse. Gasburg Creek dike consists of an impervious earth and
rockfill dam approximately 75 feet in height, with a slide-gate
controlled 18-inch-diameter conduit. The top of Gasburg Creek dike is
at elevation 725 feet msl.

Dikes A, B, and C

    The project includes three small embankments--Dikes A, B, and C--
constructed in low saddles on the reservoir rim with top elevations of
855 feet msl. Dike A is located between the main dam and spillway.
Dikes B and C are located east of the main dam.

Recreation Facilities

    The project has three developed recreation areas, Fleming Meadows,
Blue Oaks, and Moccasin Point. Primitive and semi-primitive lakeshore
camping occurs on much of the rest of its shores. The project provides
both floating and shoreline restrooms in addition to those at the
developed recreation areas. Facilities also include hazard marking,
regulatory buoy lines, and other open water-based features including
houseboat marinas and a marked water-ski slalom course.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in item (h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for     October 2017.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary       December 2017.
 terms and conditions, and fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft Environmental        July 2018.
 Impact Statement (EIS).
Comments on Draft EIS......................  September 2018.
Modified Terms and Conditions..............  November 2018.
Commission Issues Final EIS................  February 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the Notice
of Ready for Environmental Analysis.

    Dated: October 12, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22533 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67937-67939]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21717]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1402; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00324-T;
Amendment 39-22549; AD 2023-18-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900, FALCON 900EX,
FALCON 2000, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of the wing anti-icing (WAI) system leaking in the wing leading
edge. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the WAI system, and
corrective actions if necessary, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 7, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 7,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1402; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street,
Des Moines, WA. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2023-1402.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault
Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900, FALCON 900EX, FALCON 2000, and
FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
July 10, 2023 (88 FR 43477). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0041,
dated February 21, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0041) (also
referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states the WAI system was reported
leaking in the wing leading edge. The leaks were either from an
incorrect installation of the Wiggins coupling on the WAI system, or
detachment of the pressure switch line from the WAI pipe (only found on
the Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX airplanes). This condition, if not
detected and corrected, could lead to a loss of performance of WAI
protection system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
airplane.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of
the WAI system, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in
EASA AD 2023-0041. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1402.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined
that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product.
Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any
operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0041 specifies procedures for a one-time general
visual inspection of the WAI system for discrepancies, including
incorrect installation, deformation, leakage or signs of overheating,
and lack of free rotation of the clamp around the two ferrules, and,
depending on findings, corrective actions. Corrective actions include
replacement or re-installation of the affected WAI Wiggins coupling
with new seals and couplings. For the Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX
airplanes, there is an additional one-time general visual inspection of
the WAI pipes for traces of abnormal leakage, overheating, or
degradation of the thermal lagging, and depending on findings,
corrective actions. Corrective actions are for replacement of the
affected WAI pipes. This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 820 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 work-hours x $85 per hour = $595...........................              $0             $595         $487,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Labor cost                        Parts cost                   Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 2 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up to $170..            $517   Up to $687.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected operators.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

    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 airworthiness
directive:

2023-18-08 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-22549; Docket No. FAA-
2023-1402; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00324-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 7, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900,
FALCON 900EX, FALCON 2000, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes, certificated
in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0041, dated February 21, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-
0041).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain
Protection.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of the wing anti-icing (WAI)
system leaking in the wing leading edge. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address leaks in the WAI system. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could lead to a loss of performance of the WAI protection
system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0041.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0041

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0041 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0041 specifies actions
if ``any discrepancy [as defined in the applicable inspection SB] is
found,'' for this AD, discrepancies are defined as incorrect
installation, deformation, leakage, signs of overheating, and lack
of free rotation of the clamp around the two ferrules.
    (3) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0041.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD or email to: [email protected].
If mailing information, also submit information by email. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0041,
dated February 21, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0041, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 8, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21717 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P