[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36024-36028]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15340]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75190; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSEMKT LLC.; Order Disapproving
Proposed Rule Change To Remove the Exchange's Quote Mitigation Plan as
Provided in Exchange Rule 970.1NY

June 17, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On October 2, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC, (``NYSE MKT'' or ``Exchange'')
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
remove the Exchange's quote mitigation plan as provided by NYSE MKT
Rule 970.1NY. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 21, 2014.\3\ On December 2, 2014, pursuant
to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On January 8, 2015,
the Exchange submitted a comment letter in further support of its
proposal.\6\ On January 16, 2015, the Commission issued an Order
Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove
the proposed rule change.\7\ On February 27, 2015 and June 4, 2015, the
Exchange submitted comment letters in further support of its
proposal.\8\ No additional comment letters were submitted. This order
disapproves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73367 (October 15,
2014), 79 FR 63009 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73718, 79 FR 72748
(December 8, 2014). The Commission designated January 19, 2015, as
the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ See Letter from Elizabeth King, Secretary & General Counsel,
Exchange, to Kevin O'Neill, Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated
January 8, 2015 (``NYSE MKT Letter 1'') available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2014-86/nysemkt201486-1.pdf.
    \7\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 74087, 80 FR 3697
(January 23, 2015) (Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine
Whether to Approve or Disapprove a Proposal Rule Change to Remove
the Exchange's Quote Mitigation Plan as Provided by Exchange Rule
970.1NY) (``OIP'').
    \8\ See Letters from Elizabeth King, Secretary & General
Counsel, Exchange, to Kevin O'Neill, Deputy Secretary, Commission,
dated February 27, 2015 (``NYSE MKT Letter 2'') available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2014-86/nysemkt201486-2.pdf and to
Brent Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated June 4, 2015 (``NYSE MKT
Letter 3'') available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2014-86/nysemkt201486-3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    In 2007, the Exchange adopted a quote mitigation plan in connection
with the Options Penny Pilot Program (``Penny Pilot'').\9\ The
Exchange's quote mitigation plan consisted of several different
strategies used together to mitigate quotes.\10\ In 2009, the Exchange
adopted the quote mitigation plan used by NYSE Arca.\11\ According to
the Exchange, the quote mitigation plan was designed to reduce the
number of quotation messages sent by the Exchange to the Options Price
Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') by only submitting

quote messages for ``active'' series.\12\ The Exchange defines active
series under the quote mitigation plan in Exchange Rule 970.1NY as: (i)
Series that have traded on any options exchange in the previous 14
calendar days; or (ii) series that are solely listed on the Exchange;
or (iii) series that have been trading ten days or less; or (iv) series
for which the Exchange has received an order.\13\ In addition, under
the Exchange's quote mitigation plan, the Exchange may define a series
as active on an intraday basis if: (i) the series trades at any options
exchange; (ii) the Exchange receives an order in the series; or (iii)
the Exchange receives a request for quote from a customer in that
series.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 55162 (January 24,
2007), 72 FR 4738 (February 1, 2007) (Order Granting Approval of SR-
Amex-2006-106) (``Quote Mitigation Approval Order''). In this Order,
the Commission approved a proposed rule change to amend the American
Stock Exchange LLC (n/k/a NYSE MKT) rules to (i) permit thirteen
options classes to be quoted in pennies on a pilot basis and (ii)
adopt various quote mitigation strategies. In approving the Penny
Pilot, the Commission analyzed data provided by the options
exchanges to assess the potential impact the Penny Pilot would have
on, among other things, the increase in quotation message traffic.
The Exchange subsequently adopted the quote mitigation plan used by
NYSE Arca. See Securities and Exchange Release No. 59472 (February
27, 2009), 74 FR 9843 (March 6, 2009) (SR-ALTR-2008-14) (``Quote
Mitigation Approval Order No. 2'').
    \10\ See Order Granting Approval of SR-Amex-2006-106, supra note
9, at 4739.
    \11\ See Quote Mitigation Approval Order No. 2, supra note 9.
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 63009.
    \13\ See Exchange Rule 970.1NY, and Notice, supra note 3, at
63009.
    \14\ See Exchange Rule 970.1NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to remove its quote mitigation plan from its
rules by deleting Exchange Rule 970.1NY.\15\ The Exchange states that
its quote mitigation plan is no longer necessary primarily for three
reasons. First, the Exchange states that its incorporation of select
provisions of the Options Listing Procedures Plan (``OLPP'') \16\ in
Exchange Rule 903A serves to reduce the potential for excess quoting
because the OLPP limits the number of options series eligible to be
listed, which, according to the Exchange, reduces the number of options
series a market maker would be obligated to quote.\17\ Second, the
Exchange states its view that Exchange Rule 925.1NY Commentary .01,
which removes certain options series from market makers' continuous
quoting obligations, reduces the number of quote messages that the
Exchange sends to OPRA.\18\ The Exchange states that reliance on the
OLPP, via Exchange Rule 903A, and the refined market maker quoting
obligations, pursuant to Commentary .01 to Exchange Rule 925.1NY, is
sufficient as a quote mitigation plan.\19\ Third, the Exchange states
that both the Exchange's systems capacity and OPRA's systems capacity
are more than sufficient to accommodate any additional increase in
quote message traffic that might be sent to OPRA as a result of the
deletion of the quote mitigation plan.\20\ The Exchange represents that
it continually assesses its capacity needs and ensures that the
capacity that it requests from OPRA is sufficient and compliant with
the requirements established in the OPRA Capacity Guidelines.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 63010. In addition, the
Exchange proposes to amend paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of Exchange
Rule 970NY (Firm Quotes) to delete references to the ``Quote
Mitigation Plan.'' Id.
    \16\ See Amendment to Plan for the Purpose of Developing and
Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the Listing and
Trading of Standardized Options Submitted Pursuant to Section
11A(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act available at http://www.theocc.com/clearing/industry-services/olpp.jsp (providing for
the most current OLPP). See also Securities and Exchange Release No.
44521 (July 6, 2001), 66 FR 36809 (July 13, 2001) (order approving
the OLPP).
    \17\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 63009. See also Securities and
Exchange Release No. 61978 (April 23, 2010), 75 FR 22886 (April 30,
2010) (NYSEAmex-2010-39) (in which the Exchange adopted select
provisions of the OLPP into Exchange Rule 903A).
    \18\ Commentary .01 to Exchange Rule 925.1NY provides that
Exchange market makers continuous quoting obligations do not apply
``to adjusted option series, and series with a time to expiration of
nine months or greater, for options on equities and Exchange Traded
Fund Shares, and series with a time to expiration of twelve months
or greater for Index options.'' See also Notice, supra note 3, at
63009-10.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 63010. The Exchange states its
view that limiting the number of options series listed on the
Exchange is preferable to suppressing the quotes of inactive options
series, as required under current Exchange Rule 970.1NY, because all
quotes sent by Exchange market makers are actionable even if not
displayed. See id.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 63010.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further represents that it has in place certain
measures that act as additional safeguards against excessive
quoting.\22\ According to the Exchange, these safeguards include
monitoring and alerting market makers disseminating an unusual number
of quotes, a business plan designed to ensure that new listings are
actively traded,\23\ and a ratio threshold fee designed to encourage
the efficient use of orders.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See id. (citing to Commentary .09(b) to Exchange Rule 915).
    \24\ See id. (citing to NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule,
available at, https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comment Letters

    NYSE MKT submitted three comment letters in which it: (1) supports
its position that Rule 903A of the OLPP together with the current
exceptions from a market maker's continuous quoting obligations for
certain options series would be sufficient as a quote mitigation
plan,\25\ (2) provides additional information to support its argument
that relying on the OLPP requirements in Rule 903A would suffice as a
quote mitigation plan; and (3) supports its argument that the Exchange
and OPRA have sufficient capacity to accommodate an increase in quote
message traffic resulting from elimination of the Exchange's quote
mitigation plan.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1, supra note 6, at 1. See also NYSE
MKT Letter 2, supra note 8, at 1-2. The Exchange also supplies an
actual illustration of how the Rule results in quote mitigation. Id.
at 2.
    \26\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1 supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that at least one other options exchange
primarily relies on the OLPP requirements in Rule 903A as a quote
mitigation plan. \27\ The Exchange explains that OLPP Rule 903A puts a
restriction on the range of permissible strike prices based on the
price of the underlying security.\28\ The Exchange states its view that
reliance on the OLPP requirements is consistent with the Act and would
sufficiently limit the number of options series listed on the
Exchange.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1, supra note 6, at 1-2. The comment
letter further notes that the Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') stated in a response to comments on a
proposed rule change relating to increasing the number of options
series associated with Short Term Options Series that it was not
using a quote mitigation strategy, but instead employs a listing
policy that mitigates the number of classes and series listed on its
exchange by not listing illiquid options classes and products that
are not already trading on another market. (See NYSE MKT Letter 1,
supra note 6, at 2 (citing Letter to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary,
U.S. Securities Exchange Commission, from Brian O'Neill, VP and
Senior Counsel, MIAX, dated June 2, 2013, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-miax-2013-23/miax201323-2.pdf)). NYSE MKT
notes that it has a similar policy designed to help ensure that the
Exchange does not list options that generate quote volume without
providing the benefit of trading volume. See NYSE MKT Letter 1,
supra note 6, at 2 and 4.
    \28\ See NYSE MKT Letter 2, supra note 8, at 1-2.
    \29\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1, supra note 6, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange argues that eliminating its quote mitigation
plan is consistent with the Act because refined market maker quoting
obligations currently in place on the Exchange, which exempt certain
options series from market makers' continuous quoting obligations,
reduce the universe of series in which a market maker is required to
quote.\30\ The Exchange notes that these refined obligations were
adopted following implementation of its quote mitigation plan,\31\ and
believes that as a result, market makers do not need to quote in
approximately 5,000 options series, thereby decreasing quote message
traffic.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1, supra note 6, at 3.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange argues that it has sufficient capacity to handle
quoting in all options series, including quotes in those series that
are inactive and not currently disseminated pursuant to the Exchange's
quote mitigation plan.\33\ In support of this statement, the Exchange
explains that although quotes in inactive series do not generate quote
traffic from NYSE MKT, the Exchange

must nonetheless receive and process quotes in such series, and perform
additional processing to suppress quotes in these series to comply with
their quote mitigation plan.\34\ The Exchange states that because it is
already processing the quotes it suppresses, it is ``confident that its
own systems capacity is more than sufficient to accommodate any
increase in the traffic that might be sent to OPRA.'' \35\ The Exchange
notes that in its requests for capacity submitted to the Independent
Systems Capacity Advisory (``ISCA'') (which OPRA uses to ensure overall
aggregate capacity), NYSE MKT assumes that (1) options series that are
inactive at that time could become active in the future, thereby
increasing overall message traffic sent to OPRA, and (2) that all
options series that it lists, including those without continuous
quoting obligations for market makers, will generate message traffic to
OPRA.\36\ The Exchange further states its belief that OPRA also would
be able to accommodate any increase in quote message traffic resulting
from NYSE MKT no longer suppressing quotes in inactive series.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1, supra note 6, at 2.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1, supra note 6, at 2-3.
    \37\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1, supra note 6, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further argues that eliminating its quote mitigation
plan is consistent with the Act because the Exchange actively monitors
market maker quoting activity and alerts market makers to heightened
levels of quoting activity, which could result from systems issues or
an incorrectly set parameter that generates erroneous quotes.\38\ The
Exchange notes that NYSE MKT's requests for capacity to the ISCA are
adjusted to account for ``some level'' of erroneous quoting.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1, supra note 6, at 3-4.
    \39\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also states that the landscape regarding quote message
traffic and capacity has changed since the adoption of the Penny
Pilot.\40\ NYSE MKT represents that in January 2007, using the quote
mitigation plan currently in place on the Exchange, 15% of quotes
received by the NYSE Arca, were not sent to OPRA, compared to 4.3%
received by the Exchange as of April 2015.\41\ The Exchange also states
that at the time the Penny Pilot was adopted, OPRA's total capacity was
set to 359,000 messages per seconds (``mps''), and that by July 2015,
OPRA's peak capacity is anticipated to be 42,100,000 mps.\42\ In
addition, the Exchange states, based on peak message traffic figures on
the Exchange for one day in May 2015,\43\ that if the quotes the
Exchange suppressed on that day had been sent to OPRA, industry quotes
published by OPRA would have increased by no more than 1.5%, and that
this would use less than .05% of total OPRA capacity.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See NYSE MKT Letter 3, supra note 8, at 2.
    \41\ Id. Although the Exchange had not yet adopted its current
quote mitigation plan in January 2007, it provided data from NYSE
Arca from this time period for comparative purposes. Id.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id. The Exchange represents that as of Friday May 29, 2015,
peak message traffic for the Exchange was 3,121,570 mps, measured
over a 100 millisecond period. Based on this, the Exchange believes
that if the highest percentage of quotes suppressed by the Exchange
during this period (6.7%) had been published at the same rate as
quotes the Exchange had not suppressed during this time, the mps
rate would instead be 3,330,715. Id.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    Under section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act, the Commission shall approve
a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to such organization.\45\ The Commission shall
disapprove a proposed rule change if it does not make such a
finding.\46\ Rule 700(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
states that the ``burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the [Act] . . . is on the self-regulatory organization
that proposed the rule change'' and that a ``mere assertion that the
proposed rule change is consistent with those requirements . . . is not
sufficient.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i); see also 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3)
and note 47 infra, and accompanying text.
    \47\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). The description of a proposed rule
change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis
of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding. See id. Any failure of a self-regulatory
organization to provide the information solicited by Form 19b-4 may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder that are
applicable to the self-regulatory organization. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission cannot find that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\48\ In particular, the Commission cannot find that
the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\49\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ In disapproving the proposed rule change, the Commission
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with the adoption of the Penny Pilot in 2007 that
permitted the options exchanges to quote certain options series in one
and five cent increments, and in response to a letter sent by the then
Chairman of the Commission,\50\ the options exchanges, including NYSE
MKT, adopted quote mitigation plans.\51\ The Commission emphasized the
importance of options exchanges' quote mitigation strategies in
connection with the Penny Pilot in its orders approving an expansion of
the Penny Pilot in 2007. In those orders, the Commission noted that
options exchanges participating in the Penny Pilot would continue to
use quote mitigation strategies.\52\ Likewise, when the Commission
approved NYSE Arca's proposal to again expand the Penny Pilot in 2009,
the Commission reiterated that the NYSE Arca would retain and continue
to employ its quote mitigation strategy.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ In a letter sent to the options exchanges on June 7, 2006,
encouraging the implementation of a penny pilot program, then
Chairman Cox noted that quoting options in pennies would increase
quote message traffic, which the systems of exchanges, market data
vendors, and securities firms must be able to manage, and for that
reason, quoting options in pennies would begin in a small number of
options. To assist in managing the anticipated increase in quote
traffic, Chairman Cox asked that the options exchanges include a
workable quote mitigation strategy in any proposal to allow quoting
in pennies. See Commission Press Release 2006-91, ``SEC Chairman Cox
Urges Options Exchanges to Start Limited Penny Quoting,'' June 7,
2006.
    \51\ See Quote Mitigation Approval Order, supra note 9.
    \52\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56568, 72 FR 56422
(October 3, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-88); 56567 (September 27, 2007),
72 FR 56307 (October 3, 2007) (Amex-2007-96); 56565 (September 27,
2007), 72 FR 56403 (October 3, 2007) (CBOE-2007-98); 56564
(September 27, 2007), 72 FR 56412 (October 3, 2007) (ISE-2007-74);
56563 (September 27, 2007), 72 FR 56429 (October 3, 2007) (Phlx-
2007-62); and 56566 (September 27, 2007), 72 FR 56400 (October 3,
2007) (BSE-2007-40).
    \53\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60711, 74 FR 49419
(September 28, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44). See also Securities
Exchange Act Nos. 60373 (October 23, 2009), 74 FR 56675 (November 2,
2009) (Phlx-2009-91); 60864 (October 22, 2009), 74 FR 55876 (October
29, 2009) (CBOE-2009-076); 60865 (October 22, 2009), 74 FR 55880
((ISE-2009-82); 60886 (October 27, 2009), 74 56897 (November 3,
2009); 60874 (October 23, 2009), 74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009)
(NASDAQ-2009-091); and 61106 (December 3, 2009), 74 FR 65193
(December 9, 2009) (NYSEAmex-2009-74).

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

    In approving NYSE MKT's proposal in February 2007, the Commission
stated that because it expected that the Penny Pilot would increase
quote message traffic, the Commission also approved the Exchange's
proposal to reduce the number of quotations it disseminates.\54\ In
2009, the Commission approved NYSE MKT's implementation of a quote
mitigation strategy identical to that in place on NYSE Arca.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Quote Mitigation Approval Order, supra note 9, at 4740.
    \55\ See Quote Mitigation Approval Order No. 2, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2007 and 2009, the Commission approved rule changes expanding
the number of classes eligible to participate in the Penny Pilot.\56\
In so approving, the Commission reviewed data provided by the options
exchanges, including data relating to OPRA's capacity to process the
increase in quotes resulting from the expansion of the Penny Pilot and
the effectiveness of its quote mitigation plan.\57\ In approving each
of these expansions, the Commission noted that it relied, in part, on
the Exchange's representation that it would continue to use its quote
mitigation plan to suppress certain quotation traffic that would
otherwise be sent to OPRA.\58\ The Commission also relied on data
provided by the options exchanges to support representations that
capacity was not a concern, and that the quote mitigation plans in
place were successful.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The Commission approved thirteen classes to participate in
the Penny Pilot on January 24, 2007. See Quote Mitigation Approval
Order, supra note 9. On September 27, 2007, the Commission approved
an expansion of the Penny Pilot, which raised the number of
participating classes to 63. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
56567, 72 FR 56396 (October 3, 2007) (Amex-2007-96) (Order Approving
Expansion 1). On September 23, 2009, the Commission approved another
expansion, raising the number of participating classes to 363. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60711, 74 FR 49419 (September
28, 2009) (NYSEArca-2009-44) (Order Approving Expansion 2). NYSE MKT
filed a proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness, copying
the expansion approved by the Commission in NYSE Arca-2009-44. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61106 (December 3, 2009), 74 FR
65193 (December 9, 2009)(Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of NYSEAmex-2009-74).
    \57\ See Order Approving Expansion 1 and Order Approving
Expansion 2, supra note 56, at 56398 and 49422-23, respectively.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ See Order Approving Expansion 2, supra note 56, at 49422.
For example, in the order approving Expansion 2, the Commission
noted that on June 2, 2009, the sustained message traffic peak of
852,350 messages per second reported by OPRA is still well below the
OPRA's current message per second capacity limit of 2,050,000. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange believes that its quote mitigation
plan is no longer necessary because: (1) The Exchange has incorporated
select provisions of the OLPP in Exchange Rule 903A, which the Exchange
believes limits the number of series eligible to be traded; (2) current
Exchange Rule 925.1 NY Commentary .01 removes certain options series
from market makers' continuous quoting obligations, which the Exchange
believes reduces the number of quote messages that the Exchange sends
to OPRA; and (3) both the system capacity at the Exchange and at OPRA
are more than sufficient to accommodate any additional increase in
quote message traffic that might be disseminated if NYSE MKT's quote
mitigation plan is eliminated. However, the Exchange has not provided
the Commission with sufficient data regarding potential changes in
quote message traffic if the Commission approves its proposal.
    For example, the Exchange does not provide sufficient data about
the number of quote messages that its quote mitigation plan currently
suppresses relative to capacity at OPRA. Specifically, the Exchange
provided data from May 29, 2015 that purports to show that if all quote
messages suppressed by the Exchange were instead sent to OPRA, industry
quotes published by OPRA would increase by no more than 1.5%. The
Exchange asserts that this increase would use less than .05% of total
OPRA capacity across all option exchanges. Importantly, however, the
Exchange does not provide data that shows the excess capacity between
peak quote message traffic sent from all options exchanges and OPRA's
Peak Capacity for the May 29, 2015 sample. If peak quote message
traffic sent to OPRA by all the options exchanges was at or approached
OPRA's Peak Capacity, then potentially even a small increase in quote
message traffic from one exchange could result in OPRA's capacity being
exceeded.
    In addition, the Exchange does not provide data or analysis
demonstrating the potential impact the Exchange's proposal would have
on market participants who consume the OPRA and/or the Exchange's
quotation message feeds.\60\ Nor does the Exchange quantify the number
or percentage of quote messages that have been and would continue to be
suppressed as a result of the implementation of Exchange Rule 903A \61\
or current Exchange Rule 925.1NY Commentary .01.\62\ The Commission
notes that the Exchange's comment letter stated its belief that as a
result of refined quoting obligations, market makers do not need to
quote in approximately 5,000 options series, and that this has resulted
in a decrease in message traffic,\63\ however, the Exchange did not
provide data to quantify the decrease in message traffic for the
Commission to consider. Absent sufficient information and data of this
type, the Commission is not able to adequately evaluate the Exchange's
assertion that ``reliance on the OLPP, via Rule 903A, together with the
refined market maker obligation, pursuant to Commentary .01 to Rule
925.1NY, is sufficient as a quote mitigation strategy

and obviates the need for Rule 970.1.'' \64\ Other information or data
may also be helpful for the Commission's consideration of the proposed
rule change. Without sufficient supporting data and analysis, the
Commission is not able to adequately assess the impact of NYSE MKT's
proposed rule change to eliminate its quote mitigation plan and make a
determination that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Order Approving Expansion 2, supra note 56, at 49421
(The Commission noted that several commenters expressed concerns
that increased quotation message traffic imposes costs on exchanges
and other market participants to process and store the additional
quotations and they questioned the ability of market systems to
effectively handle the increased quote message traffic that would
likely result from the expansion of the Penny Pilot to 363 classes.
In approving the expansion, the Commission noted that NYSE Arca
``had adopted and [would] continue to utilize quote mitigate
strategies that should continue to mitigate the expected increase in
quotation traffic.'') Id. at 49422-23.
    \61\ In 2009, the OLPP Participants, including NYSE MKT,
represented that the new strategy they were proposing as Amendment
No. 3 to the OLPP (which was subsequently codified as Rule 903A on
the Exchange's rulebook) would be ``an additional strategy'' to be
used to address overall capacity concerns in the industry. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60365 (July 22, 2009), 74 FR
37266 (July 28, 2009) (Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3 to the
OLPP proposing uniform standards to the range of options series
exercise prices available for trading). Although it was anticipated
that the exercise price limitation bands set forth in Amendment No.
3 would also have the attendant benefit of further reducing
increases in quote message traffic, nothing in the language in the
exchanges' OLPP filings suggest that the methodology set forth in
Amendment No. 3 (to limit the number of options series available for
trading) was intended to replace the options exchanges' quote
mitigation strategies, nor does the language in those filings
suggest that it was contemplated at the time that the options
exchanges would eliminate their existing exchange-specific quote
mitigation strategies.
    \62\ While NYSE MKT stated in its proposed rule change to adopt
Commentary .01 to Exchange Rule 925.1NY that the burden of
continuous quoting in adjusted series is counter to efforts to
mitigate the number of quotes collected and disseminated, and that
the proposal would further the goal of quote mitigation, this was
not a basis given for the proposed rule change, and the Exchange did
not provide any data on what the impact of the proposal on quote
volume would be. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65209
(August 26, 2011), 76 FR 54518 (September 1, 2011) (NYSEAmex-2011-
61). Additionally, the Commission did not consider the potential
impact of the proposal on quote mitigation as a basis for approving
the elimination of continuous quoting obligation in certain series.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65572 (October 14, 2011), 76
FR 65310 (October 20, 2011) (NYSEAmex-2011-61).
    \63\ See NYSE MKT Letter 1, supra note 6, at 3.
    \64\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 63010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the limitations in the data provided by NYSE MKT, as
described above, the Commission cannot find a sufficient basis to
conclude that the proposal is consistent with the Act. The Commission
notes, however, that the Penny Pilots for each of the options exchanges
are anticipated to be extended for an additional year, until June 30,
2016. In connection with any future requests to extend the Penny Pilots
after that date, the Commission intends to require each exchange to
submit detailed information to allow for permanent approval or
disapproval by the Commission. Such proposals should, among other
things, provide detailed data and analysis to support the efficacy, or
any proposed modification or elimination, of any exchanges' quote
mitigation plan.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ In reviewing the quote mitigation plans in this manner, the
Commission would be able to consider the market-wide impact of any
proposed modification to or elimination of an exchange's quote
mitigation practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission does not believe that
NYSE MKT has met its burden to demonstrate that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder, including that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission does not believe
that NYSE MKT has met its burden to demonstrate that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,
and in particular, section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-86) be, and hereby is,
disapproved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15340 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9800-9802]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1223; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-154-AD;
Amendment 39-17348; AD 2013-03-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain

Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 airplanes. This AD was prompted
by reports of the cockpit door falling off the hinges when it is being
opened or closed. This AD requires replacing the striker and quick-
release pin of the passive lock of the cockpit door, and replacing the
upper and lower hinges of the cockpit door. We are issuing this AD to
prevent the cockpit door from falling off the hinges, which could cause
injury to airplane occupants.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 19, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 19,
2013.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2012 (77
FR 72776). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) states:

    This [Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC)] AD was prompted by reports of cockpit door falling off the
hinges when it is being opened or closed. If not corrected, this
condition may cause injury to the occupants.
* * * * *
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots
Association, International (ALPA) supports the intent of the NPRM (77
FR 72776, December 6, 2012).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed--except for minor editorial changes. We have determined
that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 72776, December 6, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 72776, December 6, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 253 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $129,030 or $510 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 72776, December 6,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-03-13 Embraer S.A.: Amendment 39-17348. Docket No. FAA-2012-
1223; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-154-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 19,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE., and -
100 SU airplanes;

and Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, and -200 STD airplanes;
certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 170-52-0055, Revision 01, dated August 1, 2011.
    (2) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 ECJ, and -
100 IGW airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW
airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER
Service Bulletin 190-52-0038, Revision 01, dated August 1, 2011, and
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190LIN-52-0020, dated August 1, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of the cockpit door falling off
the hinges when it is being opened or closed. We are issuing this AD
to prevent the cockpit door from falling off the hinges, which could
cause injury to airplane occupants.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Required Actions and Compliance Time

    Within 1,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Replace the striker and quick-release pin of the passive
lock of the cockpit door, in accordance with Part I of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin
specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this
AD.
    (i) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-52-0055, Revision 01, dated
August 1, 2011 (for Model ERJ 170 airplanes).
    (ii) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-52-0038, Revision 01, dated
August 1, 2011 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes except for Model ERJ
190-100 ECJ airplanes).
    (iii) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190LIN-52-0020, dated August 1,
2011 (for Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ airplanes).
    (2) Replace the cockpit door upper and lower hinges in
accordance with Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i),
(g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-52-0055, Revision 01, dated
August 1, 2011 (for Model ERJ 170 airplanes).
    (ii) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-52-0038, Revision 01, dated
August 1, 2011 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes except for Model ERJ
190-100 ECJ airplanes).
    (iii) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190LIN-52-0020, dated August 1,
2011 (for Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ airplanes).

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-52-
0055, dated February 10, 2011 (for Model ERJ 170 airplanes); or
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-52-0038, dated February 10, 2011 (for
Model ERJ 190 airplanes except for Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ airplanes);
which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Cindy
Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2012-08-02 and
2012-08-03, both effective September 5, 2012, and the service
bulletins identified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of
this AD, for related information.
    (1) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-52-0055, Revision 01, dated
August 1, 2011.
    (2) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-52-0038, Revision 01, dated
August 1, 2011.
    (3) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190LIN-52-0020, dated August 1,
2011.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-52-0055, Revision 01, dated
August 1, 2011.
    (ii) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-52-0038, Revision 01, dated
August 1, 2011.
    (iii) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190LIN-52-0020, dated August 1,
2011.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD contact
Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av.
Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--Putim--12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos
Campos--SP--BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732;
fax +55 12 3927-7546; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.flyembraer.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 1, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-02902 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15986-15987]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2256-071]

Consolidated Water Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Change in Land Rights.
    b. Project No: 2256-071.
    c. Date Filed: January 29, 2014.
    d. Applicant: Consolidated Water Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Wisconsin Rapids Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Wisconsin River in Wood County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas J. Witt, 610 High Street, P.O. Box
8050, Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495-8050,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jon Cofrancesco at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: April 14, 2014.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Please include the project number (P-2256-071) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Consolidated Water Power Company
(licensee) requests Commission approval to transfer certain interests
in licensee-owned lands within the project boundary to New Page
Wisconsin System, Inc. (New Page) to memorialize historic uses of the
property by a paper company, currently owned by New Page, for continued
use of the property by existing paper mill facilities and operations.
The application would separate and more precisely delineate the
licensee's hydropower and utility assets from New Page's paper mill
assets. The proposed change in land rights does not involve any changes
in project facilities, operations, or project boundaries.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-2256) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person

commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: March 14, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06310 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Generic Information Collection Submissions for  "Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery"

A. JUSTIFICATION

1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary

Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, the Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter "the Agency") seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect qualitative feedback on our service delivery.  By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.

This collection of information is necessary to enable the Agency to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with our commitment to improving  service delivery.  The information collected from our customers and stakeholders will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience with the Agency's programs.  This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in  operations might improve delivery of products or services.  These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.  It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

2. Purpose and Use of the Information Collection

Improving agency programs requires ongoing assessment of service delivery, by which we mean systematic review of the operation of a program compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means of contributing to the continuous improvement of the program.  The Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services and make improvements in service delivery based on feedback.  The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as:  timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy,  efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery.   Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public.  If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.

The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

   * Information gathered will be used only internally  for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency (if released, procedures outlined in Question 16 wil be followed);    * Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions ;    * Information gathered  will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study ;      * The collections are voluntary;    * The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;    * The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of  concern to other Federal agencies;     * Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future; and    * With the exception of information needed to provide renumeration for participants of focus groups and cognitive laboratory studies, personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained.      If these conditions are not met, the Agency will submit an information collection request to OMB for approval through the normal PRA process.

To obtain approval for a collection that meets the conditions of this generic clearance, a standardized form will be submitted to OMB along with supporting documentation (e.g., a copy of the comment card).  The submission will have automatic approval, unless OMB identifies issues within 5 business days.

The types of collections that this generic clearance covers include, but are not limited to:    * Customer comment cards/complaint forms    * Small discussion groups    *  Focus Groups of customers, potential customers, delivery partners, or other stakeholders    * Cognitive laboratory studies, such as those used to refine questions or assess usability of a website;    * Qualitative customer satisfaction surveys (e.g., post-transaction surveys; opt-out web surveys)    * In-person observation testing (e.g., website or software usability tests)

The Agency has established a manager/managing entity to serve for this generic clearance and will conduct an independent review of each information collection to ensure compliance with the terms of this clearance prior to submitting each collection to OMB.

3. Consideration Given to Information Technology

If appropriate, agencies will collect information electronically and/or use online collaboration tools to reduce burden.

4.  Duplication of Information

No similar data are gathered or maintained by the Agency or are available from other sources known to the Agency.

5.  Reducing the Burden on Small Entities

Small business or other small entities may be involved in these efforts but the Agency will minimize the burden on them of information collections approved under this clearance by sampling, asking for readily available information, and using short, easy-to-complete information collection instruments.

6. Consequences of Not Conducting Collection

Without these types of feedback, the Agency will not have timely information to adjust its services to meet customer needs.

7. Special Circumstances

There are no special circumstances. The information collected will be voluntary and will not be used for statistical purposes.

8. Consultations with Persons Outside the Agency

In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), [Insert date], a 60-day notice for public comment was published in the Federal Register.  [Depending on comments received, this section will change]

9. Payment or Gift

The Agency will not provide payment or other forms of remuneration to respondents of its various forms of collecting feedback.  Focus groups and cognitive laboratory studies are the exceptions.   In the case of in-person cognitive laboratory and usability studies, the Agency may provide stipends of up to $40.   In the case of in-person focus groups, the Agency may provide stipends of up to $75.  If  respondents participate in these kinds of studies remotely, via phone, or Internet, any proposed stipend needs to be justified to OMB and must be considerably less than that provided to respondents in in-person studies, who have to travel to the agency or other facility to participate.  If such information collections include hard-to-reach groups and the agency plans to offer non-standard stipends, the Agency will provide OMB with additional justifications in the request for clearance of these specific activities.

10.  Confidentiality

 If a confidentiality pledge is deemed useful and feasible, the Agency will only include a pledge of confidentiality that is supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, and that does not unnecessarily impede sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use.  If the agency includes a pledge of confidentiality, it will include a citation for the statute or regulation supporting the pledge.

11. Sensitive Nature

No questions will be asked that are of a personal or sensitive nature.

12. Burden of Information Collection

A variety of instruments and platforms will be used to collect information from respondents.  The annual burden hours requested (500) are based on the number of collections we expect to conduct over the requested period for this clearance.

                            Estimated Annual Reporting Burden

                              Type of Collection

                              No. of Respondents

                         Annual Frequency per Response

                              Hours per Response

                                  Total Hours

Qualitative Survey 2000 1 0.25                                       500

13. Costs to Respondents

No costs are anticipated.

14. Costs to Federal Government

The anticipated cost to the Federal Government is approximately $18,000 annually.  These costs are comprised of: support staff and contractor payments.

15. Reason for Change

Not applicable.  This is a new request for a generic ICR.

16. Tabulation of Results, Schedule, Analysis Plans

Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. Findings will be used for general service improvement, but are not for publication or other public release.

Although the Agency does not intend to publish its findings, the Agency may receive requests to release the information (e.g., congressional inquiry, Freedom of Information Act requests).  The Agency will disseminate the findings when appropriate, strictly following the Agency's "Guidelines for Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public.", and will include specific discussion of the limitation of the qualitative results discussed above.

17. Display of OMB Approval Date

We are requesting no exemption.

18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

These activities comply with the requirements in 5 CFR 1320.9.

B.	STATISTICAL METHODS

Data collection methods and procedures will vary; however, the primary purpose of these collections will be for internal management purposes; there are no plans to publish or otherwise release this information.

1. Universe and Respondent Selection        The activities under this clearance may involve samples of self-selected customers, as well as convenience samples, and quota samples, with respondents selected either to cover a broad range of customers or to include specific characteristics related to certain products or services.  Results will not be used to make statements representative of the universe of study, to produce statistical descriptions (careful, repeatable measurements), or to generalize the data beyond the scope of the sample.  The specific sample planned for each individual collection and the method for soliciting participation will be described fully in each collection request.          Qualitative surveys are tools used by program managers to change or improve programs, products, or services.  The accuracy, reliability, and applicability of the results of these surveys are adequate for their purpose.        The samples associated with this collection are not subjected to the same scrutiny as scientifically drawn samples where estimates are published or otherwise released to the public.  	         2. Procedures for Collecting Information        Data collection methods and procedures will vary and the specifics of these will be provided with each collection request. The Agency expects to use a variety of methodologies for these collections. For example, the Agency or its contractors may use commercial survey-specific software to automate its collection and analysis of feedback.  In addition to physical copies, information collection instruments may be electronically disseminated and/or posted on target pages of the Agency's web site.  Telephone scripts, personal interviews, and focus groups with professional guidance and moderation may also be used.         3. Methods to Maximize Response        Information collected under this generic clearance will not yield generalizable quantitative findings; it can provide useful customer input, but it does not yield data about customer opinions that can be generalized.       4. Testing of Procedures         Pretesting may be done with internal staff, a limited number of external colleagues, and/or customers who are familiar with the programs and products.  If the number of pretest respondents exceeds nine members of the public, the Agency will submit the pretest instruments for review under this generic clearance.         5. Contacts for Statistical Aspects and Data Collection        Each program will obtain information from statisticians in the development, design, conduct, and analysis of customer/partner service surveys, when appropriate.  This statistical expertise will be available from agency statisticians or from contractors and the Agency will include the names and contact information of persons consulted in the specific information collection requests submitted under this generic clearance.


[Federal Register: October 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 60859]
[DOCID:fr01oc10-123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-44]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before October 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Numbers FAA-2010-
0930 and/or FAA-2010-0931 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keira Jones<PHONE_NUMBER> or Tyneka
Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-0930 and FAA-2010-0931.
    Petitioner: Boeing Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.3(a)(1), 91.9(a) and
91.531(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: The Boeing Company requests relief to
allow FAA certified pilots to operate aircraft as a single pilot, or
without the required second in command crew member, during pilot
training and familiarization of foreign certified pilots in U.S.
registered aircraft.

[FR Doc. 2010-24676 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23396-23399]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9234]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52, 60 and 61

[FRL 9660-3]

Change of Address for Region 4, State and Local Agencies;
Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is amending its regulations to reflect a change in address
for EPA's Region 4 office as well as the state agencies for Georgia,

Mississippi, North Carolina and local agencies for Forsyth County,
Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency and Western
North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency. The jurisdiction of EPA
Region 4 includes the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Certain EPA
air pollution control regulations requiring submittal of notifications,
reports and other documents to the EPA Regional office must also be
submitted to the appropriate authorized state or local agency. This
technical amendment updates and corrects the addresses for submitting
such information to the EPA's Region 4 office as well as the state and
local agency offices.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 19, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa McKinley, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9403. Ms. McKinley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is amending its regulations in 40 CFR parts 52, 60 and 61 to
reflect a change in the address for EPA's Region 4 office as well as
the state agencies for Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina and local
agencies for Forsyth County, Mecklenburg County Land Use &
Environmental Services Agency, and Western North Carolina Regional Air
Quality Agency. This technical amendment merely updates and corrects
the address for EPA's Region 4 office as well as the state and local
agencies. This action is editorial in nature and is intended to provide
accuracy and clarity to the Agency's regulations. Consequently, EPA has
determined that today's rule falls under the ``good cause'' exemption
in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes agencies to dispense
with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency
to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day
delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Under
section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures
are ``impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
``Public comment is ``unnecessary'' and ``contrary to the public
interest'' since the address for EPA's Region 4 office as well as the
state and local agencies has changed and immediate notice in the CFR
benefits the public by updating citations.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule implements technical amendments to 40 CFR parts 52,
60 and 61 to reflect a change in the address for EPA's Region 4 office
as well as the state and local agencies. It does not otherwise impose
or amend any requirements. Consequently, under Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. The rule would not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Because this action is
merely editorial in nature, the Administrator certifies that it would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The rule does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not have
Federalism implications because it would not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Additionally,
it does not have tribal implications because it would not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also is not an economically
significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is
it subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001). It does not involve any technical standards that
require the Agency's consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note). Finally, it does not provide EPA with the discretionary
authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

III. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 of the CRA allows the issuing
agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the
CRA, if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public
procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement (5
U.S.C. 808(2)). As stated earlier, EPA has made such a good cause
finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective
date of April 19, 2012. EPA will submit a report containing this rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Aluminum, Ammonium sulfate plants, Batteries,
Beverages, Carbon monoxide, Cement industry, Chemicals, Coal, Copper,
Dry cleaners, Electric power plants, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Gasoline,
Glass

and glass products, Grains, Graphic arts industry, Heaters, Household
appliances, Insulation, Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Labeling,
Lead, Lime, Metallic and nonmetallic mineral processing plants, Metals,
Motor vehicles, Natural gas, Nitric acid plants, Nitrogen dioxide,
Paper and paper products industry, Particulate matter, Paving and
roofing materials, Petroleum, Phosphate, Plastics materials and
synthetics, Polymers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sewage
disposal, Steel, Sulfur oxides, Sulfuric acid plants, Tires, Urethane,
Vinyl, Volatile organic compounds, Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.

40 CFR Part 61

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Arsenic, Asbestos,
Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous substances, Mercury, Radionuclides,
Radon, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium, Vinyl
chloride.

    Dated: March 26, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52, 60 and 61 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401.

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.581 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.581  Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (a) All applications and other information required pursuant to
Sec.  52.21 of this part from sources located in the State of Georgia
shall be submitted to the State agency, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch,
4244 International Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354 rather
than to EPA's Region 4 office.
    (b) [Reserved]

Subpart Z--Mississippi

0
3. Section 52.1280 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1280  Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (a) All applications and other information required pursuant to
Sec.  52.21 of this part from sources located or to be located in the
State of Mississippi shall be submitted to the State agency, Hand
Deliver or Courier: Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality,
Office of Pollution Control, Air Division, 515 East Amite Street,
Jackson, Mississippi 39201; Mailing Address: Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality, Office of Pollution Control, Air Division, P.O.
Box 2261, Jackson, Mississippi 39225, rather than to EPA's Region 4
office.
    (b) [Reserved]

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
4. Section 52.1778 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1778  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (c) All applications and other information required pursuant to
Sec.  52.21 of this part from sources located or to be located in the
State of North Carolina shall be submitted to the State agency, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Air Quality, 1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1641 or local agencies, Forsyth County Environmental Affairs, 201 North
Chestnut Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 or Forsyth County
Air Quality Section, 537 North Spruce Street, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina 27101; Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services
Agency, Air Quality, 700 N. Tryon St., Suite 205, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28202-2236; Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality
Agency, 49 Mount Carmel Road, Asheville, North Carolina 28806, rather
than to EPA's Region 4 office.

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
5. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
6. Section 60.4 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the Region IV listing in paragraph (a).
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(L), (b)(Z), and (b)(II).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  60.4  Address.

    (a) * * *
    Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), Director, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth St. SW., Suite 9T43, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (L) State of Georgia: Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch, 4244
International Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.
* * * * *
    (Z) State of Mississippi: Hand Deliver or Courier: Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Pollution Control, Air
Division, 515 East Amite Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39201, Mailing
Address: Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of
Pollution Control, Air Division, P.O. Box 2261, Jackson, Mississippi
39225.
* * * * *
    (II) State of North Carolina: North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality, 1641 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 or local agencies,
Forsyth County Environmental Affairs, 201 North Chestnut Street,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 or Forsyth County Air Quality
Section, 537 North Spruce Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101;
Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency, Air
Quality, 700 N. Tryon St., Suite 205, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-
2236; Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, 49 Mount
Carmel Road, Asheville, North Carolina 28806.
* * * * *

PART 61--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

0
7. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
8. Section 61.04 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the Region IV listing in paragraph (a).
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(L), (b)(Z), and (b)(II).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  61.04  Address.

    (a) * * *
    Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), Director, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth St. SW., Suite 9T43, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
* * * * *

    (b) * * *
    (L) State of Georgia: Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch, 4244
International Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.
* * * * *
    (Z) State of Mississippi: Hand Deliver or Courier: Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Pollution Control, Air
Division, 515 East Amite Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39201, Mailing
Address: Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of
Pollution Control, Air Division, P.O. Box 2261, Jackson, Mississippi
39225.
* * * * *
    (II) State of North Carolina: North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality, 1641 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 or local agencies,
Forsyth County Environmental Affairs, 201 North Chestnut Street,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 or Forsyth County Air Quality
Section, 537 North Spruce Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101;
Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency, Air
Quality, 700 N. Tryon St., Suite 205, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-
2236; Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, 49 Mount
Carmel Road, Asheville, North Carolina 28806.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-9234 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 64050]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26865]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eleventh Meeting: RTCA Tactical Operations Committee (TOC)

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

ACTION: Notice of Eleventh RTCA Tactical Operations Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Eleventh RTCA Tactical Operations Committee meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 12th from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or Trin
Mitra, TOC Secretary, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 330-0655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Tactical Operations Committee. The
agenda will include the following:

Thursday, November 12, 2015

1. Opening of Meeting/Introduction of TOC Members--Co Chairs Dale
Wright and Bryan Quigley
2. Official Statement of Designated Federal Official--Elizabeth Ray
3. Approval of July 21, 2015 Meeting Summary
4. FAA Update--Elizabeth Ray
5. Recommendation on Final NOTAM Search Implementation
6. Update and Draft Recommendations from Airport Construction Task
Group
7. Update and Draft Recommendations from National Procedure Assessment
Task Group
8. FAA Response to Previous TOC Recommendations: Caribbean Operations,
GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility and Class B Airspace
9. Status Update from Regional Task Groups
10. Update on the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC)
11. Update on the VOR Minimum Operating Network (MON) Program
12. Anticipated Issues for TOC consideration and action at the next
meeting
13. Other Business
14. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, Next Generation, Enterprise Support
Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-26865 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="24/04/2008 06:45:14 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>