[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 42076]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17290]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport, Trenton, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from
Hancock County, Maine to waive the surplus property requirements for
0.77 acres of airport property located at Hancock County-Bar Harbor
Airport, Trenton, Maine.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Barry J. Hammer at the
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documents are available for review by
appointment by contacting Ms. M. Allison Rogers, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by contacting Mr. Barry J. Hammer, Federal Aviation Administration,
16 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts, Telephone
781-238-7625.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration is
reviewing a request by Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport to release
0.77 acres of airport property from surplus property obligations. The
State of Maine is making improvements to a portion of State Highway
``43'' (Route 3) extending from just north of the airport access road
to the Route 230 intersection.
    The intersection upgrades include construction of a stub entrance
for the future realignment of Caruso Drive which is the airport access
road. The release will also allow the airport to sell the parcel to the
State of Maine at fair market value, $9400 per appraisal, with the
proceeds being deposited in an identifiable interest bearing account to
be used for airport operating and maintenance expenses. The sale will
benefit the airport both operationally and financially.
    FAA funding was used in acquiring portions of the proposed parcel
to be released. The largest portion of the airport originally was
transferred from the U.S. Government through the War Assets
Administration by agreement in 1947 and 1948. Additional parcels were
subsequently acquired from private landowners during safety area
improvements and extensions to the Runway 4 approach end. However, the
portions of the parcels obtained and to be released are not needed for
aeronautical purposes.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on June 26, 2012.
Michel J. Hovan,
Acting Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-17290 Filed 7-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


Following Arrow et al. ( 1993), Mitchell and Carson ( 1989), and others, while noting the clear limitations in scope tests discussed by Heberlein et al. ( 2005), EPA believes that it is important that survey responses in this case show sensitivity to scope. This is one of the primary reasons for the use of choice experiment methodology, which is better able to capture WTP differentials related to changes in resource scope ( Bateman et al. 2002). Unlike open ended questions, in which scope insensitivity is a primary concern, EPA emphasizes that choice 50 experiments generally have shown much less difficulty with respondents reacting appropriately to the scope and scale of resource changes. Moreover, as clearly noted by Bennett and Blamey ( 2001, p. 231), " internal scope tests are automatically available from the results of a [ choice modeling] exercise." That is, within choice experiments, sensitivity to scope is indicated by the statistical significance and sign of parameter estimates associated with program attributes ( Bennett and Blamey 2001). Internal scope sensitivity will therefore be assessed through model results for the variables Fish Saved, Population Change, and Catch Change. Statistical significance of these variables   along with a positive sign   indicates that respondents, on average, are more likely to choose plans with larger quantities of these variables.

In addition to weak or internal scope tests implicit in all choice experiment statistical analysis, EPA will also conduct external scope tests ( cf. Giraud et al. 1999). The primary difference between internal and external tests is that the former assess sensitivity to scope across choices of a single respondent, while the latter involves split sample assessments across different respondents. Within a choice modeling context, external scope tests are generally considered " stronger," although also more likely to be confounded by differences in the implied choice frame ( Bennett and Blamey 2001). A variety of options for external scope tests exist, depending on the structure of stated choice questions under consideration.

In the present case, attribute by attribute external scope tests will be conducted over a split sub sample of respondents considering a specific set of choices, with all held constant across the considered choices except the scope of the attribute for which the test is to be conducted. For example, to conduct an external scope test for reductions in annual fish losses,

one would consider a set of choices that is identical over two respondent groups, except that one considers a choice with a greater reduction in fish losses. Assessing the choices over this split sample allows for an external test of scope. To illustrate this test, consider the following stylized choice between Option A and Option B. The generic labels " Level 0", " Level 1", and " Level 2"

are used to denote attribute levels, where for all attributes Level 2 > Level 1 > Level 0. 51 Table B2: Illustration of an External Scope Test Variable Option A Option B Fish Saved per Year Sample 1: Fish Saved Level 1 Sample 2: Fish Saved Level 2 Fish Saved Level 0 Effect on Long Term Fish Populations Population Change Level 0 Population Change Level 0 Effect on Annual Recreational and Commercial Catch Catch Change Level 0 Catch Change Level 0 Increase in Cost of Living for Your Household Cost Level 1 Cost Level 0 In the above example, only Fish Saved and Cost vary across the choice options. Because both Fish Saved and Cost are higher in Option A than in Option B, neither option is dominant.

In the illustrated split sample test, respondent sample 1 views the choice with Fish Saved at Level 1, while respondent sample 2 views an otherwise identical choice with Fish Saved at Level 2, where Level 2 > Level 1. If responses are externally sensitive to scope in Fish Saved, this will manifest in a greater proportion of sample 2 respondents choosing Option A than sample 1 respondents. This hypothesis may be easily assessed using a test of equal proportions across the two sub samples, and provides a simple attribute by attribute test of external scope. Analogous tests may be conducted for all attributes within the choice experiment design, using parallel methods. EPA emphasizes that the formal applicability of the above noted scope test is contingent upon the specific choice frame implied by levels of other attributes in the choice question. This is a characteristic of nearly all external scope tests applied in choice experiment frameworks ( Bennett and Blamey 2001).

Split sample tests such as those proposed above often require the addition of question versions to the experimental design, to accommodate the specific structural needs of the attribute by attribute external scope test. Otherwise, confounding effects of other varying attributes can render results of scope tests ambiguous. In the present case, the proposed tests would require the addition of up to six unique question versions to the experimental design,

enabling scope tests for the three non cost attributes within the 316( b) choice experiment scenarios. If scope tests in additional question frames are desired ( e. g., the same scope test illustrated above, but given Level 1 for population and catch attributes), still additional question 52 versions would be added. While small numbers of questions added to the experimental design should have minimal impacts on overall efficiency ( e. g., orthogonality of the design), larger numbers may have a more significant impact. Hence, given constraints on the total number of survey respondents, there is a potential empirical tradeoff between the number of external scope tests that may be conducted and the efficiency of the experimental design and statistical analysis.

Communicating Uncertainty to Respondents EPA agrees that the role of risk and uncertainty is an important issue to be addressed in the development of benefits estimates, and points out that the literature provides numerous examples of cases in which appropriate survey design, including focus groups, was used to successfully address such concerns. For example, as stated by Desvousges et al. ( 1984), " using contingent valuation to estimate the benefits of hazardous waste management regulations requires detailed information on how and the extent to which respondents understand risk ( or probability) and how government regulatory actions might change it  Using focus groups helped make this determination " EPA also emphasizes that all regulatory analyses involve uncertainty of some type ( Boardman et al. 2001).

The ecological outcome of I& E reductions is subject to considerable uncertainty. EPA believes that it is important that survey respondents be aware of this uncertainty, and that their responses reflect the knowledge that the resource changes reflected in the survey are scientific estimates. However, EPA is also aware of the clear advice from the choice modeling literature ( e. g., Bennett and Blamey 2001; Louviere et al. 2000) to avoid cognitive burden on respondents.

Hence, the proposed survey materials clearly indicate the uncertainty involved with the described resource changes in choice modeling scenarios, yet do so in a way designed to minimize cognitive burden.

For example, the introductory slide show states:

Slide 30: " You will be shown different policy options   with different effects on fish. This is because scientists are still working to determine what the exact effect on fish will be, so it is important to know how you would react to a wide range of possible outcomes. Common sense indicates that preventing the loss of fish eggs and young fish will mean more adult fish in future years, but at this point there is still significant uncertainty regarding the exact size of these future effects."

This passage clearly indicates the uncertainty involved with scientific estimates of the outcomes of I& E regulations. This is followed by further reminders of uncertainty: 53 Slide 37: " The survey uses a 0 to 100 scale to show expected long term effects on fish populations. This is the best estimate as to what will happen to average fish stocks, across all species, after 3 5 years of new policies."

Slide 53: " This survey asks you to make important choices, even though some information is not known to scientists. For example, there is no way to know the exact effect of these new policies on the fishing industry. Even so, the government will be making its final decision by July 2006. The results of this study will be used by EPA to assess the value of the proposed policies to the public, and will also be posted on EPA's website. Your responses to this survey will make a difference."

Focus groups and cognitive interviews indicated clearly that respondents understood that the numbers provided in the survey were scientific estimates subject to uncertainty, and answered choice questions accordingly. Respondents, in general, were comfortable making decisions in the presence of this uncertainty. For example, one respondent stated, "  we know that fish populations are declining and so these are all estimates. And I accept them as estimates." Other respondents made statements such as: " If they had stated figures as though these figures are it   that I would question," and " I'll take that the estimate comes with some degree of scientific knowledge behind it. More than throwing a dart, but accept it for what it was."

EPA also tested alternative versions of the survey instrument in which choice experiment attributes were presented as 90% confidence ranges, rather than as point estimates. The suggested question format was pre tested in cognitive interviews that were conducted with individual respondents on September 2. Respondents were explicitly asked whether the ranges were helpful in understanding the uncertainty of estimates presented in the choice question or whether they were a source of confusion. Seven out of the eight respondents interviewed on this occasion indicated that that ranges were more confusing, that the original presentation of resource changes was more clear, and that they clearly understood that the ecological changes described in the survey were uncertain. Furthermore, respondents were comfortable making decisions in the presence of this uncertainty.

5( c) Reporting Results The results of the survey will be made public as part of the benefits analysis for the 316( b) regulation for Phase III facilities. Provided information will include summary statistics for the survey data, extensive documentation for the statistical analysis, and a detailed description of the final results. The survey data will be released only after it has been thoroughly vetted to ensure that all potentially identifying information has been removed. 54 References Adamowicz, W., J. Loviere, and M. Williams. 1994. " Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26: 271 292.

Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. 1998. " Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation."

American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80( 1): 64 75.

Aadland, D., and A. J. Caplan. 2003. " Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85( 2): 492 502.

Arrow, K. , R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Rander, and H. Schuman. 1993. " Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation." Federal Register 58 ( 10): 4602 4614.

Bateman, I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones Lee, G.

Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Ozdemiroglu, D. W. Pierce, R. Sugden, and J. Swanson. 2002.

Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Surveys: A Manual. Northampton, MA:

Edward Elgar.

Ben Akiva, M. and S. R. Lerman. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bennett, J. and R. Blamey, eds. 2001. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Bergstrom, J. C., J. R. Stoll, J. P. Titre, and V. L. Wright. " Economic Value of Wetlands based Recreation." Ecological Economics 2( 1990): 129 147.

Bergstrom, John C. and John R. Stoll. 1989. " Aplication of experimental economics concepts and precepts to CVM field survey procedures." Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 14( 1): 98 109.

Berrens, R. P. A. K. Bohara, H. C. Jenkins Smith, C. L. Silva and D. L. Weimer. 2004.

" Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47( 2): 331 363. 55 Besedin, Elena, Robert Johnston, Matthew Ranson, and Jenny Ahlen, Abt Associates Inc. 2005.

" Findings from 2005 Focus Groups Conducted Under EPA ICR # 2155.01." Memo to Erik Helm, U. S. EPA/ OW, October 18, 2005. See docket for EPA ICR # 2155.02 Blamey, R. K., J. W. Bennett, and M. D. Morrison. 1999. " Yea saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys." Land Economics 75: 126 141.

Boardman, A. E., D. H. Greenberg, A. R. Vining, and D. L. Weimer. 2001. Cost Benefit Analysis:

Concepts and Practice, 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Boyle, K. J., B. Roach, and D. G. Waddington. 1998. 1996 Net Economic Values for Bass, Trout and Walleye Fishing, Deer, Elk and Moose Hunting, and Wildlife Watching: Addendum to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation.

Report 96 2. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August.

Brown, T. C., I. Ajzen, and D. Hrubes. 2003. " Further Tests of Entreaties to Avoid Hypothetical Bias in Referendum Contingent Valuation." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46( 2): 353 361.

Cameron, T. A. and D. D. Huppert. 1989. " OLS versus ML Estimation of Non market Resource Values with Payment Card Interval Data." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17: 230 246.

Cameron, T. 1992. " Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of nonmarket goods." Land Economics 68( 3): 302 317.

Carson, R. T., T. Groves, and M. J. Machina. 2000. " Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions." Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.

Champ P. A., and R. C. Bishop. 2001. " Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias." Environmental and Resource Economics 19( 4): 383 402.

Champ, P. A., R. C. Bishop, T. C. Brown, D. W. McCollum. 1997. " Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Non use Benefits from Public Goods." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33( 2): 151 162.

Champ, P. A., R. Moore, R. C. Bishop. 2004. " Hypothetical Bias: The Mitigating Effects of Certainty Questions and Cheap Talk." Selected paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado. 56 Croke, K., R. G. Fabian, and G. Brenniman. 1986. " Estimating the Value of Improved Water Quality in an Urban River System." Journal of Environmental Systems 16( 1): 13 24.

Cronin, F. J. 1982. " Valuing Nonmarket Goods Through Contingent Markets." Pacific Northwest Laboratory, PNL 4255, Richland, WA.

Cummings, R. G. and G. W. Harrison. 1995. " The Measurement and Decomposition of Non use Values: A Critical Review." Environmental and Resource Economics 1995( 5): 225 247.

Cummings, R. G., G. W. Harrison, and L. L. Osborne. 1995. " Can the Bias of Contingent Valuation Surveys Be Reduced?" Economics working paper, Columbia, SC: Division of Research, College of Business Administration, Univ. of South Carolina.

Cummings, R. G., P. T. Ganderton, and T. McGuckin. 1994. " Substitution Effects in CVM Values." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76( 2): 205 214.

Cummings, R. G. and L. O. Taylor. 1999. " Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method." American Economic Review 89( 3): 649 665.

Dennis, Mike. 2005. " Knowledge Networks' Plan for Increasing the Response Rate and for Statistical Correction for the Main Study for Estimating Respondents' Willingness to Pay for Reduction in Fish Mortality." Memo prepared June 13, 2005.

Desvousges, W. H., V. K. Smith, D. H. Brown, and D. K. Pate. 1984. " The Role of Focus Groups in Designing a Contingent Valuation Survey to Measure the Benefits of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations." Research Triangle Institute: Research Triangle Park, NC.

Desvousges, W. H. and V. K Smith. 1988. " Focus Groups and Risk Communication: the Science of Listening to Data." Risk Analysis 8: 479 484.

Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Duke, J. M. and T. W. Ilvento. 2004. " A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33( 2):

209 219.

Feather, P. M., D. Hellerstein, and T. Thomaso. 1995. " A discrete count model of recreational demand." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 214 227.

Freeman, A. M., III. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 57 Freeman, A. M., III. 1993. " Non use values in natural resource damage assessment." In Valuing Natural Assets, R. J. Kopp and V. Kerry Smith ( eds). Resources for the Future,

Washington, DC.

Giraud, K. L., J. B. Loomis and R. L. Johnson. 1999. " Internal and external scope in willingnessto pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife." Journal of Environmental Management 56: 221 229.

Greene, W. H. 2002. NLOGIT Version 3.0 Reference Guide. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.

Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric Analysis. 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hanemann, W. M. 1984. " Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66( 3): 332 41.

Hanemann, W. M. and B. Kanninen. 1999. " The Statistical Analysis of Discrete Response CV Data." In Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Edited by I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Heberlein, T. A., M. A. Wilson, R. C. Bishop, and N. C. Schaeffer. 2005. " Rethinking the Scope Test as a Criterion in Contingent Valuation." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50( 1): 1 22.

Heckman, J. J. 1979. " Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error." Econometrica 47( 1):

153 161.

Hoehn, J. P. 1991. " Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73( 2): 289 299.

Hoehn, J. P., F. Lupi, and M. D. Kaplowitz. 2004. Internet Based Stated Choice Experiments in Ecosystem Mitigation: Methods to Control Decision Heuristics and Biases. In Proceedings of Valuation of Ecological Benefits: Improving the Science Behind Policy Decisions, a workshop sponsored by the US EPA National Center for Environmental Economics and the National Center for Environmental Research.

Hoehn, John P., and Alan Randall. 2002. " The Effect of Resource Quality Information on Resource Injury Perceptions and Contingent Values." Resource and Energy Economics 24( 2002): 13 31. 58 Horne, P., P. C. Boxall, and W. L. Adamowicz. 2005. " Multiple use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment." Forest Ecology and Management 207( 1/ 2): 189 99.

Huang, J C., T. C. Haab, and J. C. Whitehead. 1997. " Willingness to pay for quality improvements: Should revealed and stated preference data be combined?" Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34( 3): 240 255.

Johannesson, M. 1997. " Some Further Experimental Results on Hypothetical Versus Real Willingness to Pay." Applied Economics Letters 4: 535 536.

Johnston, R. J., E. Y. Besedin, and R. F. Wardwell. 2003a. " Modeling Relationships Between Use and Non use Values for Surface Water Quality: A Meta Analysis." Water Resources Research 39( 12): 1363.

Johnston, R. J. and D. P. Joglekar. 2005. " Validating Hypothetical Surveys Using Binding Public Referenda: Implications for Stated Preference Valuation." American Agricultural Economics Association ( AAEA) Annual Meeting, Providence, July 24 27.

Johnston, R. J., G. Magnusson, M. Mazzotta and J. J. Opaluch. 2002a. " Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84( 5): 1362 1370.

Johnston, R. J., J. J. Opaluch, M. J. Mazzotta, and G. Magnusson. 2005. " Who Are Resource Nonusers and What Can They Tell Us About Non use Values? Decomposing User and Nonuser Willingness to Pay for Coastal Wetland Restoration." Water Resources Research 41( 7), doi: 10.1029/ 2004WR003766.

Johnston, R. J., S. K. Swallow, C. W. Allen, and L. A. Smith. 2002b. " Designing Multidimensional Environmental Programs: Assessing Tradeoffs and Substitution in Watershed Management Plans." Water Resources Research 38( 7): IV1 13.

Johnston, R. J., S. K Swallow and T. F. Weaver. 1999. " Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Trade offs With Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38( 1): 97 120.

Johnston, R. J., S. K. Swallow, T. J. Tyrrell and D. M. Bauer. 2003b. " Rural Amenity Values and Length of Residency." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85( 4): 1000 1015. 59 Johnston, R. J., T. F. Weaver, L. A. Smith and S. K. Swallow. 1995. " Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights From Ethnographic Interview Techniques." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24( 1): 56 69.

Kaplowicz, M. D., F. Lupi and J. P. Hoehn. 2004. " Multiple Methods for Developing and Evaluating a Stated Choice Questionnaire to Value Wetlands." Chapter 24 in Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, eds. S. Presser, J. M. Rothget, M. P.

Coupter, J. T. Lesser, E. Martin, J. Martin, and E. Singer. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Kling. C. 1997. " The Gains from Combining Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Data to Value Nonmarket Goods." Land Economics 73( 3): 428 439.

Layton, D. F. 2000. " Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40( 1): 21 36.

Li, H., R. P. Berrens, A. K. Bohara, H. C. Jenkins Smith, C. L. Silva, and D. L. Weimer. 2005.

" Exploring the Beta Model Using Proportional Budget Information in a Contingent Valuation Study." Economics Bulletin 17( 8): 1 9.

List, J. A. 2001. " Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards." American Economic Review 91( 5): 1498 1507.

Loomis, J., T. Brown, B. Lucero, and G. Peterson. 1996. " Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay." Land Economics 72( 4): 450 461.

Louviere, J. J., D. A. Hensher, and J. D. Swait. 2000. Stated Preference Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Maddala, G. S. 1983. " Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics."

Econometric Society Monographs No. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Magat, Wesley A., J. Huber, K. W. Viscusi, and J. Bell. 2000. " An Iterative Choice Approach to Valuing Clean Lakes, Rivers, and Streams." Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21( 1): 7

43.

Mazzotta, M. J., J. J. Opaluch, G. Magnuson, and R. J. Johnston. 2002. " Setting Priorities for Coastal Wetland Restoration: A GIS Based Tool That Combines Expert Assessments And Public Values." Earth System Monitor 12( 3): 1 6. 60 McConnell, K. E. 1990. " Models for Referendum Data: The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18( 1): 19 34.

McFadden, D. 1981. " Econometric models of probabilistic choice." In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data, C. F. Manski and D. L. McFadden ( eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

McFadden, D. and K. Train. 2000. " Mixed Multinomial Logit Models for Discrete Responses."

Journal of Applied Econometrics 15( 5): 447 470.

Mitchell, Robert C., and R. T. Carson. 1981. An Experiment in Determining Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements. Preliminary draft of a report to the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington.

Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and R. T. Carson. 1984. A Contingent Valuation Estimate of National Freshwater Benefits: Technical Report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D. C.

Murphy, J. J., T. Stevens and D. Weatherhead. 2004. " Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point?" Working Paper No. 2003 2. Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Newell, L. W. and S. K. Swallow. 2002. " Are Stated Preferences Invariant to the Prospect of Real Money Choice?" Selected Paper, American Agricultural Economics Association,

Long Beach, California, July 28 31.

Olsen, D., J. Richards, and R. D. Scott. 1991. " Existence and Sport Values for Doubling the Size of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Runs." Rivers 2( 1): 44 56.

Opaluch, J. J., S. K. Swallow, T. Weaver, C. Wessells, and D. Wichelns. 1993. " Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: Including public preferences in current siting mechanisms." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24( 1): 41 59.

Opaluch, J. J., T. A. Grigalunas, M. Mazzotta, R. J. Johnston, and J. Diamantedes. 1999.

Recreational and Resource Economic Values for the Peconic Estuary. Prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program. Peace Dale, RI: Economic Analysis Inc. 124 pp.

Parsons, G. R., P. M. Jakus, and T. Tomasi. 1999. " A comparison of welfare estimates from four models for linking seasonal recreational trips to multinomial logit models of site choice."

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38: 143 157. 61 Poe, G. L., J. E. Clark, D. Rondeau, and W. D. Schulze. 2002. " Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation." Environmental and Resource Economics 23: 105 131.

Poe, G. L., M. P. Welsh, and P. A. Champ. 1997. " Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay when Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses are not Independent."

Land Economics 73( 2): 255 267.

Powe, N. A. and I. J. Bateman. 2004. " Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism." Land Economics 80( 2): 258 271.

Provencher, Bill and R. Bishop. 1997. " An Estimable Dynamic Model of Recreation Behavior with an Application to Great Lakes Angling." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33: 107 27.

Ready, R. C., J. C. Whitehead, and G. C. Blomquist. 1995. " Contingent Valuation When Respondents are Ambivalent." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29( 2): 181 196.

Rosenberger, R. and J. Loomis. 1999. " The Value of Ranch Open Space to Tourists: Combining Observed and Contingent Behavior Data." Growth and Change 30: 366 383.

Rowe, R. D., E. R. Morey, A. D. Ross, and W. D. Shaw. 1985. Valuing Marine Recreational Fishing on the Pacific Coast. Energy and Resource Consultants Inc. Report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report LJ 85 18C. March.

Smith, V. K., and C. Mansfield. 1998. " Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36: 209 224.

Schkade, D. A. and J. W. Payne. 1994. " How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 88 109.

Taylor, L. O., M. McKee, S. K. Laury, and R. G. Cummings. 2001. " Induced Value Tests of the Referendum Voting Mechanism." Economics Letters 71( 1): 61 65.

Train, K. 1998. " Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People." Land Economics 74( 2): 230 239.

U. S. EPA. 2004a. " Phase II  Large Existing Electric Generating Plants Response to Public Comment." http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ commentph2. htm. 62 U. S. EPA. 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. ( EPA 240 R 00 003). U. S.

EPA, Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC, September 2000.

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. " Employer costs for Employee Compensation: March 2004." Press release. June 24, 2004.

http:// www. bls. gov/ news. release/ pdf/ ecec. pdf.

W. Kip Viscusi, Joel Huber, and Jason Bell. 2004. " The Value of Regional Water Quality Improvements." Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 477, June.

Vossler C. A. and J. Kerkvliet. 2003. " A Criterion Validity Test of the Contingent Valuation Method: Comparing Hypothetical and Actual Voting Behavior for a Public Referendum." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45( 3): 631 649.

Whitehead, John C., and P. A. Groothuis. 1992. " Economic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: a Case Study of North Carolina's Tar Pamlico River." Rivers 3: 170 178.

Whitehead, J. C., G. C. Blomquist, T. J. Hoban, and W. B. Clifford. 1995. " Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On Site Users, Off Site Users,

and Non users." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29( 2): 238 251.

Winkelmann, R. 2000. Econometric Analysis of Count Data. Springer, New York.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 33803]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3576-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Tennessee; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Tennessee (FEMA-3576-EM), dated December 13, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on May 16, 2022.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Leda M. Khoury,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of Robert A. Haywood as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-11905 Filed 6-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 50 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14050-14054]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05221]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80214; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 4 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2,
and 4, Allowing the Exchange To Trade Pursuant to Unlisted Trading
Privileges Any NMS Stock Listed on Another National Securities
Exchange; Establishing Listing and Trading Requirements for Exchange
Traded Products; and Adopting New Equity Trading Rules Relating to
Trading Halts of Securities Traded Pursuant to Unlisted Trading
Privileges on the Pillar Platform

March 10, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On June 30, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to (1) allow the Exchange to trade pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') any NMS Stock \3\ listed on
another national securities exchange; (2) establish listing and trading
requirements for exchange traded products (``ETPs''); and (3) adopt new
equity trading rules relating to trading halts for securities traded
pursuant to UTP on the Exchange's new trading platform, Pillar. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on July 14, 2016.\4\ On July 26, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change.\5\ On August 23, 2016, the

Commission designated a longer period for action on the proposed rule
change.\6\ On August 26, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to
the proposed rule change.\7\ On October 12, 2016, the Commission
instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\8\ On January
4, 2017, the Commission extended the time period for Commission action
to March 11, 2017.\9\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change. On March 8, 2017, the Exchange submitted
Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. On March 10, 2017, the
Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change and
submitted Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change.\10\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on Amendment
No. 4 to the proposed rule change from interested persons and is
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2,
and 4, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The term ``NMS Stock'' is defined in Rule 600 of Regulation
NMS. See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78263 (July 8,
2016), 81 FR 45580 (``Notice'').
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (1) Added a bullet point
stating that ``[b]ecause the Exchange's rules regarding the
production of books and records are described in Rule 440, the
Exchange is proposing to refer to Rule 440 in its proposed rules
wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.4 is referenced in the rules of
NYSE Arca Equities proposed in this filing;'' (2) deleted the
sentence stating that ``[i]f an exchange has approved trading rules,
procedures and listing standards in place that have been approved by
the Commission for the product class that would include a new
derivative securities product, the listing and trading of such `new
derivative securities product,' does not require a proposed rule
change under Section 19b-4 of the Act'' and made conforming changes
to the rest of that paragraph; (3) deleted the bullet point that
stated ``[c]orrection of a typographical error in NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 8.400(a) so that proposed Rule 8.400(a) reads `as such terms
are used in Rule 5.1(b)' in the last sentence, rather than `as such
terms are used in the Rule 5.1(b)' as is currently drafted in NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 8.400(a);'' and (4) noted that ``for new ETPs to
be traded pursuant to UTP, which are listed and traded on another
exchange pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e), the Exchange would be required
to file Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission in accordance with the
requirements therein.'' Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-44/nyse201644-1.pdf. Because
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change does not materially
alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise unique or
novel regulatory issues, Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice
and comment.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78641, 81 FR 59259
(August 29, 2016).
    \7\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (1) Added the clause
``pursuant to UTP'' at the end of the sentence that states that
``[t]he Exchange would have to file a Form 19b-4(e) with the
Commission to trade these ETPs;'' (2) in the first footnote that
follows that sentence, deleted the clause ``pursuant to Rule 19b-
4(e);'' and (3) to the end of that same footnote, added the
reference ``[s]ee proposed Rule 5.1(a)(2); supra note 19 and
accompanying text.'' Amendment No. 2 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-44/nyse201644-2.pdf. Because
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change does not materially
alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise unique or
novel regulatory issues, Amendment No. 2 is not subject to notice
and comment.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79085, 81 FR 71771
(October 18, 2016).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79736, 82 FR 3067
(January 10, 2017).
    \10\ In Amendment No. 4, the Exchange revised the proposed
listing and trading requirements for the Subject ETPs (as defined
below) to incorporate amendments to the NYSE Arca Equities
requirements for the same products, which the Commission recently
approved. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80189 (March 9,
2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2017-01) (``Arca Amendment''). In addition, in
Amendment No. 4, the Exchange (i) added a statement that the
Exchange's Pillar implementation is targeted for completion by year-
end 2017 and represented that the Exchange will announce the trading
on Pillar of all Tape B and C symbols, on a UTP basis, by Trader
Update to go out prior to the scheduled implementation date; (ii)
deleted proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 5.1(a); (iii)
clarified both in the filing and in the proposed rule text that the
Exchange is adopting ETP rules only for purposes of trading on
Pillar pursuant to UTP and that it does not plan to list ETPs on
Pillar under these ETP rules; (iv) proposed to adopt NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.5(m) concerning procedures for delisting ETPs; and
(v) made other technical corrections. Amendment No. 4 is available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-44/nyse201644-1627614-137373.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, As Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2,
and 4 \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Additional information regarding the proposal can be found
in the Notice, supra note 4, and in Amendment No. 4, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE proposes to trade on its Pillar trading platform,\12\ pursuant
to unlisted trading privileges, any NMS Stock listed on another
national securities exchange (i.e., Tapes B and C symbols).\13\ NYSE
also proposes to establish listing and trading requirements for certain
types of ETPs (the ``Subject ETPs'') on Pillar.\14\ The Exchange's
proposed rules for the qualification, listing, and trading of the
Subject ETPs are substantially identical to the rules of NYSE Arca
Equities.\15\ Finally, the Exchange proposes to adopt new equity
trading rules relating to trading halts of securities traded pursuant
to UTP on Pillar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ On January 29, 2015, the Exchange announced the
implementation of Pillar, which is an integrated trading technology
platform designed to use a single specification for connecting to
the equities and options markets operated by the Exchange and its
affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE
MKT''). See Trader Update dated January 29, 2015, available here:
http://www1.nyse.com/pdfs/Pillar_Trader_Update_Jan_2015.pdf. See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76803 (December 30, 2015),
81 FR 536 (January 6, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2015-67) (``Pillar Framework
Filing'').
    \13\ The Exchange will continue to trade Tape A symbols on its
separate, existing trading platform (``Existing Platform'') and will
not trade securities pursuant to UTP on the Existing Platform.
    \14\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish listing
and trading rules for the following: Equity Linked Notes, Investment
Company Units, Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes, Equity Gold Shares,
Equity Index-Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities,
Currency-Linked Securities, Fixed-Income Index-Linked Securities,
Futures-Linked Securities, Multifactor-Index-Linked Securities,
Trust Certificates, Currency and Index Warrants, Portfolio
Depositary Receipts, Trust Issued Receipts, Commodity-Based Trust
Shares, Currency Trust Shares, Commodity Index Trust Shares,
Commodity Futures Trust Shares, Partnership Units, Paired Trust
Shares, Trust Units, Managed Fund Shares, and Managed Trust
Securities.
    \15\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5 (Listings) and 8 (Trading of
Certain Equities Derivatives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange only proposes to trade securities pursuant to UTP on
its Pillar trading platform; the Exchange does not propose to trade
securities pursuant to UTP on its Existing Platform. Furthermore, the
Exchange does not intend to list the Subject ETPs on Pillar or on its
Existing Platform. Therefore, the Exchange proposes rules that only
apply to Pillar and does not propose any changes to the rules
pertaining to the Existing Platform. The following further describes
the Exchange's proposal.

New Definitions

    The Exchange proposes to define the term ``Exchange Traded
Product'' in Rule 1.1 (bbb) \16\ to mean a security that meets the
definition of ``derivative securities product'' in Rule 19b-4(e) under
the Act and a ``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' to mean an Exchange
Traded Product that trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges.\17\ The Exchange is also proposing to add Rule 1.1(jj) to
define ``UTP Listing Market'' as the primary listing market for a UTP
security, and Rule 1.1(kk) to define ``UTP Regulatory Halt'' as a trade
suspension, halt, or pause called by the UTP Listing Market in a UTP
security that requires all market centers to halt trading in that
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As the Exchange is proposing new rules that are only
applicable to the Pillar platform, references in this Order to
proposed NYSE Rules 1, 5, 7, and 8 would fall under NYSE Rules 1P,
5P, 7P, and 8P, respectively. See Notice at 45581.
    \17\ This proposed definition is identical to the definition of
``Derivative Securities Product'' in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
1.1(bbb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal to Trade Securities Pursuant to UTP

    The Exchange proposes new Rule 5.1(a) to extend UTP to Pillar for
securities listed on other national securities exchanges. Specifically,
proposed Rule 5.1(a)(1) would allow the Exchange to trade securities
eligible for UTP under Section 12(f) of the Act.\18\ Proposed Rule
5.1(a) provides that the securities the Exchange trades pursuant to UTP
would be traded on Pillar under the rules applicable to such trading.
The Exchange does not currently have rules in place to operate trading
on the Pillar platform, and the Exchange has represented that it would
not trade UTP securities until it has effective trading rules for the
Pillar platform in place.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(f).
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 45581. The Exchange has
adopted a framework for rules governing trading on Pillar and has
stated its intent to file additional proposed rule changes to adopt
rules to operate the Exchange on the Pillar platform. See Pillar
Framework Filing, supra note 12, at 537 (``Through a series of
subsequent rule filings, the Exchange will propose to populate the
individual rules with the rule text to operate the Exchange on the
Pillar platform'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 5.1(a)(1) makes clear that the Exchange would not
list any ETPs unless it files a proposed rule

change under Section 19(b)(2) under the Act.\20\ Therefore, the
provisions of proposed Rules 5 and 8 described below, which permit the
listing of ETPs, would not be effective until the Exchange files a
proposed rule change to amend its rules to comply with Rules 10A-3 and
10C-1 under the Act and to incorporate qualitative listing criteria,
and such proposed rule change is approved by the Commission.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \21\ In addition, the introductory note to each of proposed
Rules 5P and 8P states that the provisions of the rules apply to the
trading pursuant to UTP of ETPs on the Exchange and do not apply to
the listing of ETPs on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UTP of Exchange Traded Products

    The Exchange proposes Rule 5.1(a)(2) to govern trading of ETPs
pursuant to UTP and Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. Specifically, proposed
Rule 5.1(a)(2)(A) provides that, within five days after commencement of
trading, the Exchange would file a Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission
with respect to each ETP the Exchange trades pursuant to UTP.
    The Exchange proposes certain other rules to support the trading of
ETPs pursuant to UTP. For example, proposed Rule 5.1(a)(2)(B) provides
that the Exchange will distribute an information circular prior to the
commencement of trading in an ETP, which would generally include the
same information as the information circular provided by the listing
exchange, including (a) the special risks of trading the ETP, (b) the
Exchange's rules that will apply to the ETP, including Rules 2090 and
2111,\22\ and (c) information about the dissemination of value of the
underlying assets or indices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See NYSE Rule 2090 (the Exchange's Know Your Customer Rule)
and NYSE Rule 2111 (the Exchange's Suitability Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, proposed Rule 5.1(a)(2)(C) establishes certain
requirements for member organizations that have customers that trade
ETPs on a UTP basis, including requirements pertaining to prospectus
delivery and the provision of written description of terms and
characteristics of the ETPs. Also, proposed Rule 5.1(a)(2)(E) imposes
restrictions on member organizations that are registered as market
makers on the Exchange for certain ETPs. Finally, proposed Rule
5.1(a)(2)(F) specifies certain surveillance mechanisms for ETPs traded
on the Exchange pursuant to UTP. Namely, the Rule provides that the
Exchange will enter into a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreements with markets that trade components of the index or portfolio
on which the Subject ETPs are based.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In addition, the Exchange represents that its surveillance
procedures for ETPs traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP would be
similar to the procedures used for equity securities traded on the
Exchange and would incorporate and rely upon existing Exchange
surveillance systems. See Notice, supra note 4, at 45582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to add the definitions contained in
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.1(b) that are relevant to the ETP listing and
trading rules the Exchange proposes in this filing, with some non-
substantive differences to account for the peculiarities of the two
exchanges and their respective rule books.

Listing and Trading Requirements for ETPs

    The Exchange is proposing substantially identical rules to those of
NYSE Arca Equities for the qualification, listing, and delisting of the
ETPs. The Exchange proposes to add Rule 5.2(j), which would be
substantially identical to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j). This
proposed rule pertains to the following: Equity Linked Notes (Rule
5.2(j)(2)); Investment Company Units (Rule 5.2(j)(3)); Index-Linked
Exchangeable Notes (Rule 5.2(j)(4)); Equity Gold Shares (Rule
5.2(j)(5)); Equity Index Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked
Securities, Currency-Linked Securities, Fixed Income Index-Linked
Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked
Securities (Rule 5.2(j)(6)); and Trust Certificates (Rule 5.2(j)(7)).
The Exchange also proposes to add Rules 5.5(g)(2), which would provide
additional continuous listing standards for Investment Company Units;
5.5(j)-1, which would provide additional continuous listing standards
for Equity Linked Notes; and 5.5(m), which would provide delisting
procedures for ETPs. The text of these proposed rules is identical to
NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(2)-5.2(j)(7), 5.5(g)(2), 5.5(j)-1, and
5.5(m), other than certain non-substantive and technical differences.
    Further, The Exchange also proposes to add Rule 8, which is
substantially identical to Sections 1 and 2 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8. This proposed rule pertains to the following: Currency and Index
Warrants (Rules 8.1-8.13), Portfolio Depositary Receipts (Rule 8.100),
Trust Issued Receipts (Rule 8.200), Commodity-Based Trust Shares (Rule
8.201), Currency Trust Shares (Rule 8.202), Commodity Index Trust
Shares (Rule 8.203), Commodity Futures Trust Shares (Rule 8.204),
Partnership Units (Rule 8.300), Paired Trust Shares (Rule 8.400), Trust
Units (Rule 8.500), Managed Fund Shares (Rule 8.600), and Managed Trust
Securities (Rule 8.700).
    As mentioned above, however, the Exchange would not list any ETPs
unless it files a proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(2) under the
Act.\24\ Therefore, the provisions of Rules 5 and 8 which permit the
listing of ETPs would not be effective until the Exchange files a
proposed rule change to amend its rules to comply with Rules 10A-3 and
10C-1 under the Act and to incorporate qualitative listing criteria,
and such proposed rule change is approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 7.18--Requirements for Halts on Pillar Platform

    In conjunction with the implementation of Pillar for trading of
securities pursuant to UTP, the Exchange proposes new Rule 7.18 which
governs trading halts in symbols trading on Pillar. These rules are
substantively identical to their NYSE Arca Equities counterparts.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 4, is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\25\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\26\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to trade on Pillar, pursuant to UTP, NMS
Stocks listed on another national securities exchange, including the
Subject ETPs. Section 12(f) of the Act \27\ provides that any national
securities exchange may extend unlisted trading privileges to
securities listed and registered on other national securities
exchanges, subject to

Commission rules. In particular, in order to extend unlisted trading
privileges to securities listed elsewhere, Rule 12f-5 under the Act
requires a national securities exchange to have in effect a rule or
rules providing for transactions in the class or type of security to
which the exchange extends unlisted trading privileges.\28\ The
Commission notes that the Exchange's proposed Rule 5.1 allows NYSE to
extend unlisted trading privileges in Pillar to any security that is an
NMS Stock that is listed on another national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
    \28\ See 17 CFR 240.12f-5. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 35737 (April 21, 1995), 60 FR 20891 (April 28, 1995)
(File No. S7-4-95) (adopting Rule 12f-5 under the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously approved substantively identical
rules for the listing and trading of the Subject ETPs on NYSE Arca
Equities. The Exchange represents that it will not list, but only
trade, the Subject ETPs on a UTP basis. The Exchange represents that to
trade pursuant to UTP any ETP that is listed and traded on another
national securities exchange, NYSE would be required to file Form 19b-
4(e) with the Commission.
    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal does not raise
any novel issues, as it is consistent with the rules of other national
securities exchanges that trade securities and, in particular, ETPs
pursuant to UTP.\29\ Additionally, the Exchange represents, and its
proposed rules specify, that NYSE will not list any Subject ETPs unless
it first obtains Commission approval of a proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of proposed
Rules 5 and 8 that permit the listing of Subject ETPs would only be
effective if the Commission approves a proposed rule change for the
Exchange to amend its rules to comply with Rules 10A-3 and 10C-1 under
the Act and to incorporate qualitative listing criteria. Finally, the
Commission notes that NYSE has represented that it will be responsible
for accepting the obligations pertinent to a UTP market, including
specific requirements for registered market makers, books and record
production, surveillance procedures, suitability and prospectus
requirements, and requisite Exchange approvals.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., Rule 14.1 of Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. and Rule
14.1 of Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.
    \30\ See proposed Rule 5.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the trading of Tapes B and C symbols,
including ETPs, on NYSE on a UTP basis should lead to increased
competition among the different securities markets, as well as provide
market participants with improved price discovery, increased liquidity,
more competitive quotes, and greater price improvement in those
securities.\31\ The Commission therefore finds that NYSE's proposed
rules governing trading on a UTP basis on its Pillar platform are
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that
it would not trade UTP securities until it has effective trading
rules for the Pillar platform in place. See Notice, supra note 4, at
45581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 4

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 4
to 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-NYSE-2016-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-44. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-44 and should be
submitted on or before April 6, 2017.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 4

    Amendment No. 4: (1) Revised the proposed listing and trading
requirements for the Subject ETPs to take into account recently
approved amendments to the NYSE Arca Equities requirements for the same
products; \32\ (2) added a statement that the Exchange's Pillar
implementation is targeted for completion by year-end 2017 and a
representation that the Exchange will announce the trading on Pillar of
all Tape B and C symbols, on a UTP basis, by Trader Update prior to the
scheduled implementation date; (3) deleted proposed Supplementary
Material .01 to Rule 5.1(a); (4) clarified both in the filing and in
the proposed rule text that the Exchange is adopting ETP rules only for
purposes of trading on Pillar pursuant to UTP and that it does not plan
to list ETPs on Pillar under these ETP rules; (5) proposed to adopt
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m) concerning procedures for delisting
ETPs; and (6) made other technical corrections. Thus, as a result of
Amendment No. 4, among other things, the Exchange's proposed rules for
the Subject ETPs remain substantially identical to the rules of NYSE
Arca Equities for the qualification, listing, and trading of the
Subject ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Arca Amendment, supra note 10. These amendments to the
NYSE Arca Equities requirements, among other things, specified
certain continued listing requirements for the Subject ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that Amendment No. 4 furthers the goals of
the proposed rule change and does not raise novel regulatory issues.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\33\ to approve the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 4, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\34\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2016-44), as modified
by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 4, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05221 Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 29411]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10294]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-121, OMB Control No. 3235-0110]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form T-1

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form T-1 (17 CFR 269.1) is a statement of eligibility and
qualification under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa et
seq.) of a corporation designated to act as a trustee under an
indenture. The information is used to determine whether the corporation
is qualified to serve as a trustee. Form T-1 is filed on occasion. The
information required by Form T-1 is mandatory. This information is
publicly available on EDGAR. Form T-1 takes approximately 15 hours per
response to prepare and is filed by approximately 2 respondents. We
estimate that 25% of the 15 hours (4 hours) is prepared by the company
for a total annual reporting burden of 8 hours (4 hours per response x
2 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by June 13, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: May 9, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10294 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8294]
[DOCID:fr16fe06-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-183-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Limited Waiver

February 9, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 24, 2006, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) tendered for filing a limited waiver of its FERC Gas Tariff
in order to allow Northern to resolve a prior-period measurement error
by applying the low monthly index price rather than the average monthly
index price.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 16, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2246 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 8, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2000-8299

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Air Japan Co., Ltd.						Date Filed: September 15, 2003

Relief requested: Amend exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to the extent
necessary to enable Air Japan to provide U.S. carrier code-share
services on flights operated by Air Japan between points in Japan and
points beyond Japan, in connection with U.S. carrier services between
the United States and points beyond Japan, via Japan.

Date and citation of last action:  March 17, 2003, in this docket

Applicant representative:  Charles J. Simpson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  October 8, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  October 8, 2003-March 17, 2004
(coextensive with Air Japan’s underlying authority in this docket)

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  1998 Memorandum
of Understanding between the United States and Japan (1998 MOU).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X Standard exemption conditions (attached) and those conditions
contained in the Notice of Action Taken dated March 17, 2002, in this
docket.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective
duri杮愠祮瀠牥潩桷湥琠敨栠汯敤⁲獩渠瑯椠潣灭
楬湡散眠瑩桴潣摮瑩潩獮椠灭獯摥愠潢敶䴠牯潥
敶Ⱳ琠楨⁳畡桴牯瑩⁹慣湮瑯戠潳摬漠⁲瑯敨睲獩
牴湡晳牥敲楷桴畯⁴硥汰捩瑩䐠灥牡浴湥⁴灡牰癯污
甠摮牥吠瑩敬㐠‹景琠敨唠匮潃敤മ

഍㠰㈯〰ള഍


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41163-41166]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16476]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69921; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-72]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Acceptable Complex Execution Parameter

July 2, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 1, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Acceptable Complex Execution
Parameter (``ACE Parameter'') in Rule 1080.08(i), which is the price
range outside of which a Complex Order (as defined below) will not be
executed.
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new language is italicized; deleted text is in brackets.
* * * * *

Rule 1080. Phlx XL and Phlx XL II

    (a)-(o) No change.
       Commentary: ------------
    .01-.07 No change.
    .08 Complex Orders on Phlx XL.
    (a)-(h) No change.
* * * * *
    (i) Acceptable Complex Execution (``ACE'') Parameter. The ACE
Parameter defines a price range outside of which a Complex Order
will not be executed [following a COLA]. The ACE Parameter is either
a percentage or number defined by the Exchange on an issue-by-issue
basis. [The ACE Parameter percentage shall not be less than 3
percent.] The ACE Parameter price range is based on the cNBBO at the
time an order would be executed. A Complex Order to sell will not be
executed at a price that is lower than the cNBBO bid by more than
the ACE Parameter [percentage]. A Complex Order to buy will not be
executed at a price that is higher than the cNBBO offer by more than
the ACE Parameter [percentage]. A Complex Order or a portion of a
Complex Order that cannot be executed within the ACE Parameter
pursuant to this rule will be placed on the CBOOK. The Exchange will
issue an Options Trader Alert (``OTA'') to membership indicating the
issue-by-issue ACE Parameters [percentages]. The Exchange will also
maintain a list of ACE Parameters [percentages] on its Web site.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The ACE Parameter feature is designed to help maintain a fair and
orderly market by helping to mitigate the potential risk of executions
at prices which are extreme and potentially erroneous. Specifically,
the ACE Parameter prevents Complex Orders \3\ from automatically
executing at potentially erroneous prices by establishing a price range
outside of which a Complex Order will not be executed. Currently, the
ACE Parameter is a percentage defined by the Exchange on an issue-by-
issue basis. The purpose of this proposal is to make the ACE Parameter
more flexible and relevant to different types of options by eliminating
the 3 percent limit and permitting the ACE Parameter to a number, in
addition to a percentage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 1080.08(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the ACE Parameter is always a percentage, not less than
3 percent. The ACE Parameter is based on the Complex National Best Bid
or Offer (``cNBBO'') \4\ at the time an order would be executed. A
Complex Order to sell will not be executed at a price that is lower
than the cNBBO bid by more than the ACE Parameter. A Complex Order to
buy will not be executed at a price that is higher than the cNBBO offer
by more than the ACE Parameter percentage. A Complex Order or a portion
of a Complex Order that cannot be executed within the ACE Parameter
will be placed on Exchange's Complex Limit Order Book (``CBOOK'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 1080.08(a)(vi).
    \5\ See Rule 1080.08(f). The Exchange notes that Complex Orders
are placed on the CBOOK at their limit price and may trade pursuant
to Rule 1080.08(f)(iii), depending on the movement of the cNBBO and
application of the ACE Parameter. Although at any given time, the
price of a Complex Order may lock or cross another Complex Order on
the CBOOK, this is not a prohibited locked or crossed market for
purposes of Rule 1086, because such Complex Orders do not constitute
a Protected Quotation as defined in Rule 1083. Complex Orders
consist of multiple components (rather than one series) and are not
disseminated pursuant to the OPRA Plan. If two Complex Orders on the
CBOOK cross, they may nevertheless execute against each other, if
the execution price is within the ACE Parameter. If, however, the
potential execution price is not within the ACE Parameter for one of
those orders, those orders would not trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume the ACE parameter is set at 10%, and a PHLX XL
participant submits a Complex Order to buy Series A and buy Series B
(30 units of the strategy) for a net debit of $8.40 and a COLA \6\ is
initiated. At the end of the COLA, the market is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ COLA is the automated Complex Order Live Auction process.
See Rule 1080.08(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NBBO for Series A is $4.50-$4.60, size 10 X 10.
    NBBO for Series B is $2.90-$3.00, size 10 X 10.
    cNBBO for the strategy is $7.40-$7.60.
    If the ACE Parameter is set at 10%, executions to buy the strategy
(buy Series A and buy Series B) will occur up to $8.36 ($7.60 + [0.10 x
$7.60]) but no higher. Any remainder of the order will be placed on the
CBOOK at $8.40.
    In its proposal to adopt the ACE Parameter, the Exchange adopted a
minimum 3 percent level, similar to the CBOE.\7\ At the time, the
Exchange believed that this level was reasonable and appropriate,
because a marketable order that would deviate from the cNBBO by more
than 3% may be indicative of an extreme or potentially erroneous price,
and an Exchange participant would likely want to evaluate the affected
Complex Order further before receiving an automatic execution. At this
time, based on its experience, the Exchange believes that this amount
may not be appropriate for all options, such that a lower percentage
could be necessary. For example, higher priced options series may
benefit from an ACE Parameter of 1%. Consider the following scenario:
Assume the ACE Parameter is set at 10%, and a PHLX XL participant
submits a Complex Order to buy Series A and buy Series B (30 units of
the strategy) at the market. Further assume:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66602 (March 14,
2012), 77 FR 16579 (March 21, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-31). See also CBOE
Rule 6.53C.08(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NBBO for Series A is $124.50-$124.60, size 10 X 10.
    NBBO for Series B is $12.90-$13.00, size 10 X 10.
    cNBBO for the strategy is $137.40-$137.60.
    If the ACE Parameter is set at 10%, executions to buy the strategy
(buy Series A and buy Series B) will occur up to $151.36 ($137.60 +
[0.10 x $137.60]) but no higher. The resulting executions of the
Complex Order could vary in price by up to $13.76 ($151.36-$137.60). If
the ACE

Parameter is set at 1% rather than 10%, executions to buy the strategy
will occur only up to $138.97 ($137.60 + [0.01 x $137.60]) but no
higher. With the ACE Parameter set at 1%, the variation in execution
prices is drastically reduced.
    The Exchange also seeks to operate the ACE Parameter not only as a
percentage but as an absolute number, representing a certain dollar
amount around the cNBBO. The Exchange believes that sometimes an
absolute number rather than a percentage would be appropriate, such as
when the cNBBO is low priced.
    For example, assume the ACE Parameter is set at 10%, and a PHLX XL
participant submits a Complex Order to buy Series A and sell Series B
(30 units of the strategy) for a net debit of $0.08.
    NBBO for Series A is $0.25-$0.28, size 10 X 10.
    NBBO for Series B is $0.20-$0.25, size 10 X 10.
    cNBBO for the strategy is $0.00-$0.08.
    If the ACE Parameter is set at 10%, executions to buy the strategy
(buy Series A and sell Series B) will only be permitted to occur at the
offer of $0.08 since a 10% range of that offer equates to a sub-penny
increment ($0.08 + [.10 x $0.08]) = .088). Allowing an absolute number
rather than a percentage for the ACE Parameter in this instance would
give the Exchange the ability to offer a range of allowable execution
prices rather than only the cNBBO offer.
    The Exchange intends to implement these changes to the ACE
Parameter in July or August, and will issue an Options Trader Alert
(``OTA'') indicating when the changes become operative as well as the
issue-by-issue ACE Parameters. The Exchange will also maintain a list
of ACE Parameters on its Web site.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the first sentence of Rule
1080.08(i) by deleting reference to the COLA. The Exchange believes
that this was an inadvertent drafting error and now seeks to correct
it. Consistent with the fourth sentence, the ACE Parameter applies and
is based on the cNBBO at the time an order would be executed, whether
or not there was a COLA. The Exchange believes that the fifth and sixth
sentences further support this and do not mention a COLA. Regardless,
the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to apply the ACE Parameter
even when there is no COLA, because the purpose of the ACE Parameter is
to protect orders from an execution at a faraway price, which purpose
is equally relevant when there is an execution without a COLA.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that applying the ACE Parameter to
orders than are not subject to a COLA should be beneficial to users
submitting Complex Orders to the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the
public interest, by making slight modifications to the ACE Parameter so
that it can better protect investors from extreme and potentially
erroneous executions of their Complex Orders. The ACE Parameter, as
modified, will continue to promote just and equitable principles of
trade by preventing executions at prices that are significantly worse
than the cNBBO, which the Exchange believes is a fair representation of
then-available prices. Like other order protections, such as an
Acceptable Trade Range feature,\10\ the ACE Parameter is a protection
against executions at inappropriate prices and the Exchange believes
that it will do so better with the modifications proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ See NOM Rules, Chapter VI, Section 10(7) and BX Options
Rules, Chapter VI, Section 10(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respecting the amendment to the first sentence of Rule 1080.08(i),
the Exchange believes that applying the ACE Parameter when there is no
COLA is consistent with the aforementioned statutory principles,
because the ACE Parameter will protect orders from an execution at a
faraway price. Specifically, when there is no COLA and therefore no
opportunity for price improvement over existing markets, protection
from executions at faraway prices is especially useful and likely to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors
and the public interest.
    The Exchange noted above that Complex Orders are placed on the
CBOOK at their limit price and may trade from the CBOOK pursuant to
Rule 1080.08(f)(iii). At any given time, the price of a Complex Order
may lock or cross another Complex Order on the CBOOK, which is not
prohibited, as explained above. The Exchange believes that it is
consistent with just and equitable principles of trade and the
protection of investors and the public interest for Complex Orders on
the CBOOK to, in this way, lock or cross, including because of the
application of the ACE Parameter, without interacting, because those
orders benefit from the protections of the ACE Parameter in terms of
pricing at a reasonable price from the market. Although such orders
could have potentially interacted but for the ACE Parameter, the orders
are nevertheless protected from unreasonable execution prices, which
benefits those who enter such Complex Orders.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the proposal does
not impose an intra-market burden on competition, because it will be
available to all Phlx participants who enter Complex Orders. Nor will
the proposal impose a burden on competition among the options
exchanges, because, in addition to the vigorous competition for order
flow among the options exchanges generally, many options exchanges
offer complex order functionality. To the extent that market
participants disagree with the particular approach taken by the
Exchange herein, market participants can easily and readily direct
order flow to competing venues. The ACE Parameter, as amended by this
proposed rule change, will not impose a burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-Phlx-2013-72 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-72. 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 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 offices 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-Phlx-2013-72, and should be submitted on or before July
30, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16476 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P