[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 90 (Friday, May 8, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27294-27295]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0140; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Greenville and Madisonville, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Muhlenberg County Airport, Greenville,
KY, and Madisonville Regional Airport, Madisonville, KY. This action is
the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the
Central City VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which
provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these
airports, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.
Additionally, the name of Madisonville Regional Airport and the
geographic coordinates of both airports are being updated to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, July 16, 2020. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for this Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Muhlenberg County Airport, Greenville, KY, and
Madisonville Regional Airport, Madisonville, KY, to support instrument
flight rule operations at these airports.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 11006; February 26, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0140
to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Muhlenberg County Airport, Greenville, KY, and Madisonville
Regional Airport, Madisonville, KY. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by:
    Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile
radius) of Muhlenberg County Airport, Greenville, KY; removing the city
associated with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply
with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database;
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Madisonville Regional Airport, Madisonville, KY,
by updating the name (previously Madisonville Municipal Airport) and
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautic database.
    This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Central City VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

ASO KY E5 Greenville, KY [Amended]

Muhlenberg County Airport, KY
    (Lat. 37[deg]13'34'' N, long. 87[deg]09'23'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Muhlenberg County Airport.
* * * * *

ASO KY E5 Madisonville, KY [Amended]

Madisonville Regional Airport, KY
    (Lat. 37[deg]21'21'' N, long. 87[deg]23'54'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Madisonville Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 4, 2020.
Steven T. Phillips,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-09819 Filed 5-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16024-16026]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6709]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64085; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-14]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting Rules
Related to Qualified Contingent Cross Orders

March 17, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 14, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt rules related to Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders (``QCCs''). The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to adopt rules related to QCCs. The
proposed rule change is based on an International Securities Exchange
(``ISE'') proposal recently approved by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62523 (July 16,
2010), 75 FR 43211 (July 23, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-73) (``ISE
Proposal''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63955
(February 24, 2011), 76 FR 11533 (March 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73)
(``ISE Approval''). The Exchange notes that letters commenting on
the ISE Proposal were submitted on its behalf by the Exchange's
parent company, NYSE Euronext. See e.g., letters dated August 9,
2010 and October 21, 2010 from Janet L. McGinness, Senior Vice
President--Legal & Corporate Secretary, Legal & Government Affairs,
NYSE Euronext (``NYSE Euronext Comment Letters'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange is currently a party to the Options Order Protection
and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``Distributive Linkage Plan''),\5\ and
has implemented Exchange rules in conjunction with that plan (the
``Distributive Linkage Rules'').\6\ Similar to Regulation NMS under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act or ``Act''), the
Distributive Linkage Plan requires, among other things, that the
Exchange establish, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent ``Trade-Throughs.''
\7\ A Trade-Through is a transaction in an options series at a price
that is inferior to the best price available in the market.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60405 (July 30,
2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009) (File No. 4-546).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60526 (August 18,
2009), 74 FR 43185 (August 26, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-19).
    \7\ Section 5(a) of the Distributive Linkage Plan.
    \8\ Section 2(21) of the Distributive Linkage Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Distributive Linkage Plan replaced the Plan for the Purpose of
Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Old Linkage
Plan''), and the Distributive Linkage Rules replaced the then-existing
NYSE Amex rules implementing the Old Linkage Plan (the ``Old Linkage
Rules''). The Old Linkage Plan and the Old Linkage Rules provided a
limited Trade-Through exemption for ``Block Trades,'' defined to be
trades of 500 or more contracts with a premium value of at least
$150,000.\9\ However, as with Regulation NMS, the Distributive Linkage
Plan does not provide a Block Trade exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Old Linkage Plan Sections 2(3) and 8(c)(i)(C); and former
NYSE Amex Options Rule 991NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ISE Proposal stated that the loss of the Block Trade exemption,
among other things, adversely affects the ability of its members to
effect large trades that are tied to stock,\10\ and therefore proposed
the QCC as a limited substitute for the Block Trade exemption. While
our views with respect to the potential impact that the ISE Proposal
may have on market structure remain unchanged,\11\ we nonetheless are
proposing to adopt rules related to QCCs based on those approved for
ISE. In particular, we believe that such a rule change would permit the
Exchange to remain competitive with ISE, and the other options
exchanges that may also adopt rules for QCCs, by making QCCs available
to ATP Holders and their customers through the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ISE Proposal at 43212.
    \11\ See NYSE Euronext Comment Letters, supra note 1[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    While Regulation NMS does not provide a block trade exemption from
trade-through liability for stocks, the Commission, by order, has
provided trade-through relief for ``Qualified Contingent Trades''
(``QCTs'').\12\ The QCT Release provides an exemption from trade-
through liability in the equity market for multi-component, fully-
hedged trades where one order is contingent on the execution of one or
more additional orders. Building on this concept, and as approved for
ISE, the Exchange proposes that when an NYSE Amex ATP Holder effects a
QCT trade in a Regulation NMS Stock, that ATP Holder be permitted to
cross the options leg of the trade on the Exchange immediately upon
entry if the order is

for at least 1,000 contracts, is part of a QCT, is executed at a price
at least equal to the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''), and there
are no Customer Orders on the Exchange's Consolidated Book at the same
price.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57620 (April 4,
2008), 73 FR 19271 (April 9, 2008) (the ``QCT Release''). That
release superseded a release initially granting the Qualified
Contingent Trade exemption. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54389 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR 52829 (September 7, 2006).
    \13\ We propose to define a QCC trade substantively identical to
the Commission's definition in the QCT release as well as that in
the ISE Proposal. A QCC trade must meet the following conditions:
(i) At least one component must be an NMS Stock; (ii) all the
components must be effected with a product price contingency that
either has been agreed to by all the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (iii) the
execution of one component must be contingent upon the execution of
all other components at or near the same time; (iv) the specific
relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between
the prices of the component orders) must be determined by the time
the contingent order is placed; (v) the component orders must bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or cancelled; and (vi) the transaction must be fully
hedged (without regard to any prior existing position) as a result
of other components of the contingent trade. Consistent with the QCT
Release and the ISE Proposal, ATP Holders must demonstrate that the
transaction is fully hedged using reasonable risk-valuation
methodologies. See QCT Release, supra note 9[sic], at footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The QCC would permit ATP Holders to provide their customers a net
price for the entire trade, and then allow the ATP Holder to execute
the options leg of the trade on NYSE Amex at a price at least equal to
the NBBO while using the QCT exemption to effect the trade in the
equities leg at a price necessary to achieve the net price.\14\ Under
the proposal, the Exchange would not permit the options component of a
stock-option order to trade through the NBBO.\15\ However, there are
times when the quotation spread for the option on the Exchange would
not permit an execution of the options component between the Exchange
BBO, particularly in options that trade in increments greater than
$0.01. In those cases, the Exchange proposes to permit an execution of
the options component at a price that matches the Exchange BBO.
Moreover, under the proposal, the Exchange would not permit the
execution of a QCC at the same price as a Customer Order on the
Consolidated Book. In such a case, the QCC will be rejected.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NYSE Amex will adopt policies and procedures to ensure that
ATP Holders use the Qualified Contingent Cross Order properly.
First, we will require ATP Holders to properly mark all Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders as such. In addition, FINRA, on behalf of
NYSE Amex, will implement an examination and surveillance program to
assess ATP Holder compliance with the requirements applicable to
Qualified Contingent Cross Orders, including the requirement that
the stock leg of the transaction be executed at or near the same
time as the options leg.
    \15\ While the QCC would not provide exposure for price
improvement for the options leg of a stock-option order, the options
leg must be executed at the NBBO or better. The Commission has
previously approved crossing transactions with no opportunity for
price improvement. See e.g., ISE Rule 721(a) and Chicago Board
Options Exchange (``CBOE'') Rule 6.74A, Interpretations and Policies
.08.
    \16\ The Commission has previously approved the rejection of
crossing transactions when there is a priority customer order on the
book at the same price. See, e.g., ISE Rule 721(a); and CBOE Rule
6.74A, Interpretations and Policies .08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, under this proposal, the Exchange would only permit
QCCs to be submitted electronically from off the Floor through the NYSE
Amex System. In this regard, an ATP Holder located on the Floor of the
Exchange would not be allowed to enter QCCs into the NYSE Amex System,
or otherwise effect them in open outcry. In this way, our proposal
provides for the same means to effect QCCs on the Exchange as that of
the ISE. We plan to file a separate proposed rule change to address
effecting QCCs in open outcry on the Floor of the Exchange.
    To provide a mechanism for the Exchange to surveil for whether QCCs
were entered from off of the Floor, the Exchange proposes to adopt
Commentary .01 to Rule 985NY. This provision would require ATP Holders
to maintain books and records demonstrating that each Qualified
Contingent Cross Order was routed to the NYSE Amex System from off of
the Floor. Any Qualified Contingent Cross Order that does not have a
corresponding record required by this provision would be deemed to have
been entered from on the Floor in violation of Rule 985NY.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission notes that the Exchange inadvertently
omitted the following paragraph from its filing and requested that
the Commission include it in this notice: The Exchange's proposal
addresses the mechanics of executing the stock and options
components of a net-price transaction. The Exchange believes that it
is necessary that it provide ATP Holders and their customers with
the same trading capabilities available on other exchanges with
respect to QCCs, including the change proposed herein, which would
permit ATP Holders to execute the options legs of their customers'
large complex orders on the Exchange. See e-mail from Joseph P.
Corcoran, Chief Counsel, Legal and Government Affairs, New York
Stock Exchange LLC, to Jennifer L. Colihan, Special Counsel,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated March 16, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent
withSection 6(b) of the Act \18\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The proposed rules are consistent with the protection of
investors in that they are designed to prevent Trade-Throughs. In
addition, the proposed rule change would promote a free and open market
by permitting the Exchange to compete with ISE for these types of
orders. In this regard, competition would result in benefits to the
investing public, whereas a lack of competition would serve to limit
the choices that the public has for execution of their options
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, the proposed rule
change would prevent the otherwise significant burden on competition
that would arise if ISE were permitted to implement QCCs without a
similar functionality being made available to market participants
across all U.S. markets for listed options, including ATP Holders on
the Exchange.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 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 Commission has waived this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-14 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-NYSEAmex-2011-14.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Section, 100
F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also
be available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office
and on its Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-14 and should
be submitted on or before April 12, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6709 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44884-44886]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17836]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WV104-6042; FRL-9828-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; administrative change.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is updating the materials that are incorporated by
reference (IBR) into the West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted
by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP)
and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are
available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the EPA
Regional Office.

DATES: This action is effective July 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40
CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations:
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room Number 3334, EPA West
Building, Washington, DC 20460; or the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon McCauley,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to
address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to
time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised
regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968),
EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally-
approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office
of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP
document, IBR procedures and ``Identification of plan'' format are
discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register
document. On February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7024), EPA published a Federal
Register beginning the new IBR procedure for West Virginia. On February
28, 2007 (72 FR 8903) February 10, 2009 (74 FR 6542), and December 28,
2010 (75 FR 81474), EPA published updates to the IBR material for West
Virginia.
    Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has approved into
the SIP the following regulatory changes to the following West Virginia
regulations:

A. Added Regulations

    1. 45 CSR 35 (Requirements for Determining Conformity of General
Federal Actions to Applicable Air Quality Implementation Plans (General
Conformity)), 45 CSR 35-5 (Inconsistency Between Rules).

B. Revised Regulations

    1. 45 CSR 8 (Ambient Air Quality Standards), sections 45-8-1
through 45-8-4.
    2. 45 CSR 14 (Permits for Construction and Major Modification of
Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration), sections 45-14-1 through 45-14-26.
    3. 45 CSR 35 (Requirements for Determining Conformity of General
Federal Actions to Applicable Air Quality Implementation Plans (General
Conformity)), sections 45-35-1 through 45-35-4.

C. Removed Regulations

    1. 45 CSR 8, sections 45-8-5 through 45-8-7.

II. EPA Action

    In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as
of April 1, 2013. EPA is also correcting the entries in the ``State
Citation'' column for Regulation 45 CSR 8 (Ambient Air Quality
Standards) to read ``Section 45-8-1,'' ``Section 45-8-2,'' ``Section
45-8-3,'' and ``Section 45-8-4.''
    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).
Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as
a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. 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 codification only reflects existing law. Immediate
notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations
and incorrect table entries.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 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. 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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of
the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable
to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual
component of the West Virginia SIP compilations had previously afforded
interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no
need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such
petitions for judicial review for this ``Identification of plan''
update action for West Virginia.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 5, 2013.
W.C. Early,
 Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. Section 52.2520 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);

0
b. Revising the heading of paragraph (c); and
0
c. In paragraph (c) revising each entry under 45 CSR 8 (Ambient Air
Quality Standards).
    The revised text read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) Incorporation by reference.
    (1) Material listed as incorporated by reference in paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section with an EPA approved date of April 1, 2013 was
approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The
material incorporated is as it exists on the date of the approval, and
notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal
Register. Entries in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with EPA
approval dates on or after April 1, 2013 will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
    (2)(i) EPA Region III certifies that the rules and regulations
provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section
are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules and
regulations which have been approved as part of the State
implementation plan as of April 1, 2013.
    (ii) EPA Region III certifies that the following source-specific
requirements provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State
source-specific requirements which have been approved as part of the
State implementation plan as of November 1, 2010. No additional
revisions were made between November 1, 2010 and April 1, 2013.
    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be
inspected at the EPA Region III Office at 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. For further information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>;
the EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room Number
3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460. For further information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (c) EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes.

                                EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
State citation [Chapter 16-      Title/subject           State        EPA approval date    explanation/ citation
       20 or 45 CSR]                                effective date                           at 40 CFR 52.2565
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 [45 CSR] Series 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 45-8-1.............  General..............          6/1/12  10/29/12, 77 FR 65493  Filing and effective
                                                                                dates are revised.
Section 45-8-2.............  Definitions..........          6/1/12  10/29/12, 77 FR 65493
Section 45-8-3.............  Adoption of Standards          6/1/12  10/29/12, 77 FR 65493  Effective date is
                                                                                revised.
Section 45-8-4.............  Inconsistency Between          6/1/12  10/29/12, 77 FR 65493
                              Rules.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-17836 Filed 7-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 79503]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27175]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4567-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

New York; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4567-DR), dated October 2, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 3, 2020.

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 notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 2, 2020.

    Putnam, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, and Westchester Counties for
Public Assistance.

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.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-27175 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1874-1875]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00255]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0136]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Community-Acquired Bacterial
Pneumonia: Developing Drugs for Treatment; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Community-
Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: Developing Drugs for Treatment.'' The
purpose of this draft guidance is to assist clinical trial sponsors and
investigators in the development of antibacterial drugs for the
treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). The science
of clinical trial design and our understanding of this disease have
advanced in recent years, and this draft guidance informs sponsors of
our current recommendations for clinical development. FDA is
specifically requesting comment on critical areas of scientific
interest including the appropriate primary efficacy endpoints, the use
of an intent-to-treat (ITT) population for the primary analysis
population, and the use of antibacterial therapy by patients before
participating in clinical trials. This draft guidance revises the draft
guidance of the same name that published March 20, 2009.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by April 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sumati Nambiar, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6232, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1300; or Joseph G. Toerner, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
22, Rm. 6244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: Developing Drugs for
Treatment.'' The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist clinical
trial sponsors and investigators in the development of antibacterial
drugs for the treatment of CABP. Issues in CABP clinical trials were
discussed at a 2008 workshop cosponsored by FDA and professional
societies. Recently, there have been additional discussions about
clinical trial design and endpoints for CABP at several meetings of the
Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee. As a result of these public
discussions, the science of clinical trial design and our understanding
of endpoints and approaches to clinical development have advanced.
    This revised draft guidance supersedes the draft guidance published
in March 2009 and informs sponsors of the changes in our
recommendations. Although we acknowledge the challenges in conducting
clinical trials of investigational antibacterial drugs in CABP, this
revised draft guidance incorporates changes intended to attain a
greater degree of balance between the practicability of conducting CABP
clinical trials and the trial procedures needed for a scientifically
sound and interpretable trial. We are specifically requesting input
from the public on these changes for consideration before finalizing
the guidance. Specifically, the changes from the 2009 draft guidance
include:
     A description of two potential primary efficacy endpoints
for CABP clinical trials: (1) Improvement in patient symptoms early in
the course of therapy for CABP (at day 3 to day 5) and (2) all-cause
mortality.
     A justification for a noninferiority margin based on
clinical responses observed early in the course of therapy, as well as
a justification for all-cause mortality as a primary efficacy endpoint.
     Suggestions for efficacy analyses based on: (1) An overall
ITT population and (2) a microbiological intent-to-treat population
consisting of those patients who have a documented bacterial pathogen
known to cause CABP.
     An approach for accommodating enrollment of patients who
have received prior antibacterial therapy, provided certain constraints
are met.
    Issuance of this guidance fulfills a portion of the requirements of
Title VIII, section 804, of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (Publ. L. 112-144), which requires FDA to ``review and,
as appropriate, revise not fewer than 3 guidance documents per year . .
. for the conduct of clinical trials with respect to antibacterial and
antifungal drugs. . . .''
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on this topic.
It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does
not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be
used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0014 and the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0001.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 6, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-00255 Filed 1-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15249-15250]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2020-12]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Kenneth
Thomas

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. 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 and must be received on or before April 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0951
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hanan Romodan<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 March 11, 2020.
Brandon Roberts,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0951.

    Petitioner: Kenneth Thomas.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  61.159(d).
    Description of Relief Sought: If granted, this exemption would
allow the petitioner to use flight time acquired as a U.S. Armed Forces
Navigator to be equivalent to that of a U.S. Armed Forces Flight
Engineer crew member, as outlined in Sec.  61.159 (d)(1)(i) of Title
14, Code of Federal Regulations. More specifically, the petitioner
requests this flight time as a navigator be logged in the same manner
as flight engineer time towards meeting the aeronautical experience
requirements of an airline transport pilot certificate.

[FR Doc. 2020-05532 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58318-58319]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25186]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation: Notice of Availability
of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact/Record of Decision for the Shuttle Landing Facility Launch Site
Operator License

AGENCY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT) is the lead agency. The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Air Force, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and National Park Service (NPS) are cooperating
agencies for this Environmental Assessment (EA) due to their special
expertise and jurisdictions.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA
implementing regulations, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, the FAA
is announcing the availability of the Final Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for the Shuttle
Landing Facility (SLF) Launch Site Operator License (Final EA and
FONSI/ROD).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacey M. Zee, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF)
encompasses about 4,432 acres of property at Kennedy Space Center,
including the 15,000 foot long, 300 foot wide runway. The SLF, which
previously supported the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Space Shuttle Program, is now a state-licensed private
use airport managed by Space Florida. Under the Proposed Action
described in the Final EA, Space Florida would construct launch site
facilities and the FAA would issue a launch site operator license to
Space Florida for the operation of a commercial space launch site at
the SLF. The EA may be used to support the issuance of launch licenses
or experimental permits to prospective vehicle operators that propose
to conduct launches of horizontal takeoff and horizontal landing launch
vehicles from the SLF. However, if a prospective launch vehicle
operator's vehicle

parameters fall outside those analyzed in the EA, the FAA would re-
evaluate the potential impacts and, if necessary, prepare additional
NEPA analysis.
    The Final EA addresses the potential environmental impacts of Space
Florida's proposal to construct and operate the SLF as a launch
location for horizontally launched and landed rockets. The Final EA
considers the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action
and the No Action Alternative. The successful completion of the
environmental review process does not guarantee that the FAA Office of
Commercial Space Transportation would issue a Launch Site Operator
License to Space Florida. The project must also meet all FAA
requirements of a Launch Site Operator License. Individual launch
operators proposing to launch from the site would be required to obtain
a separate launch operator license.
    An electronic version of the Final EA and FONSI/ROD is available on
the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation website at: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/space_florida/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2018.
Daniel Murray,
Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-25186 Filed 11-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


June 23, 2016

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	GEM Power User Release for Debugging

FROM:	Houshun Zhang, OTAQ/ASD

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

The enclosed CD contains two folders

GEM P2v2.3 Power User Release 6-23-2016 Installer

The first one contains all GEM source code, while the second one contains only executable GEM without requiring Matlab/Simulink license.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29752-29753]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12050]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; Jaguar Land Rover

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Jaguar Land Rover
North America LLC's, (Land Rover) for an exemption of the Land Rover
LR2 vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the
Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is granted, because the agency
has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49
CFR part 541.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2013 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated April 13, 2012, Land
Rover requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the
theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Land Rover LR2
vehicle line, beginning with Model Year (MY) 2013. The petition
requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543,
Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the
installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for the
entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Land
Rover provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity,
design and location of the components of the antitheft device for the
Land Rover LR2 vehicle line. Land Rover will install a passive,
transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as
standard equipment on its LR2 vehicle line beginning with MY 2013. Key
components of its antitheft device will include a power train control
module (PCM), instrument cluster, body control module (BCM), remote
frequency receiver, immobilizer antenna unit (IAU), smart key, door
control units and a perimeter alarm system. The immobilizer device is
automatically armed when the Smart Key is removed from the vehicle.
Land Rover stated that the Smart Key is programmed and synchronized to
the vehicle through the means of an identification key code and a
randomly generated secret code that are unique to each vehicle.
Additionally, Land Rover states that the audible and visual perimeter
alarm system that will be installed as standard equipment can be armed
manually or programmed to arm automatically with the Smart Key. If the
hood, luggage compartment or doors are opened during an unauthorized
entry attempt, the vehicle siren alarm will sound and the exterior
lights will flash. Land Rover's submission is a complete petition as
required by 49 CFR part 543.7, in that it meets the general
requirements contained in 49 CFR part 543.5 and the specific content
requirements of 49 CFR part 543.6.
    Land Rover stated that there are two methods of vehicle operation
and engine start: (1) Unlocking the vehicle with the Smart Key unlock
button and pressing the Start button, and (2) using the emergency key
blade. Land Rover further stated that, when the Start button is
pressed, a search begins in order to find and authenticate the Smart
Key within the vehicle interior. A coded exchange between the BCM and
Smart Key is entered through the IAU. If the exchange is successful,
the BCM will pass the valid key status to the Instrument Cluster. With
the ignition on, the BCM is forced to communicate with the instrument
Cluster. The BCM sends the ``key valid'' message to the PCM which
initiates a coded data transfer. If successful, the engine is
authorized to start. If the Smart Key has a discharged battery or is
damaged, the emergency key blade can be used to unlock the door.
Pressing the ignition start button initiates a search to find and
authenticate the Smart Key within the vehicle interior. If
authentication is unsuccessful, the Smart Key must be docked in the
lower steering column cowl. Once the correct key is placed in the
correct position, and the ignition start button is pressed again, a
coded exchange is entered via the IAU. If the exchange is successful,
the BCM will pass the valid key status to the instrument cluster. The
BCM then sends a message to the PCM initiating a coded data transfer
and successful engine start.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Land
Rover provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device,
Land Rover conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Land
Rover provided a detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e.,
temperature and humidity cycling, high and low temperature cycling,
mechanical shock, random vibration, thermal stress/shock tests,
material resistance tests, dry heat, dust and fluid ingress tests).
Land Rover stated that it believes that its device is reliable and
durable because it complied with specified requirements for each test.
Additionally, Land Rover stated that the vehicle's key recognition
sequence includes in excess of a billion code combinations with
encrypted data that is secure against duplication. The coded data
transfer between modules also uses a unique, secure identifier, random
number and a secure public algorithm. Furthermore, Land Rover stated
that there is no means to bypass

the key locking system of the vehicle with force because the vehicle
does not have a conventional mechanical key barrel since the LR2 is
equipped with a push button vehicle ignition.
    Land Rover informed the agency that its LR2 vehicle line was first
equipped with an engine immobilizer device beginning with its MY 2008
vehicles and, as a result, there are no data available to compare the
LR2 with an immobilizer device to an LR2 without an immobilizer device.
Land Rover stated that based on MY 2008 and 2009 theft data information
published by NHTSA, Land Rover LR2 vehicles equipped with immobilizers
had a theft rate that was below the median. The average theft rates
using 2 MYs' data are 0.7504 and 0.2904 respectively. Therefore, Land
Rover has concluded that the antitheft device proposed for its vehicle
line is no less effective than those devices in the lines for which
NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the parts-marking
requirements. Land Rover also stated that the immobilizer in the Land
Rover LR2 line is no less effective than similar devices NHTSA has
already granted full exemptions (i.e., Range Rover Evoque and Jaguar XK
and XJ). Additionally, Land Rover notes a Highway Loss Data Institute
news release (July 19, 2000) showing approximately a 50% reduction in
theft for vehicles installed with an immobilizer device.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Land Rover on the
device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the LR2
vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements
of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency
concludes that the device will provide the five types of performance
listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation, attracting attention
to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by
means other than a key, preventing defeat or circumvention of the
device by unauthorized persons, preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Land Rover has provided adequate reasons for its belief that
the antitheft device for the Land Rover LR2 vehicle line is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information
Land Rover provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Land
Rover's petition for exemption for the Land Rover LR2 vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with its
2013 model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541,
Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft
Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f)
contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all
Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future
product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is
granted and a general description of the antitheft device, is necessary
in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines
exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
    If Land Rover decides not to use the exemption for this line, it
shall formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line
must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6
(marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Land Rover wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: May 11, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-12050 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9780-9783]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03649]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94252; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule

February 15, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 7, 2022, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'' or ``BZX
Equities'') proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to decrease the
standard liquidity adding rebate for orders in securities at or above
$1.00 and to eliminate Tier 3 of the Single MPID Investor Tiers. The
Exchange proposes to implement the proposed change to its fee schedule
on February 1, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
February 1, 2022 (SR-BZX-2022-007). On February 7, 2022, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), to which market
participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available
information,\4\ no single registered equities exchange has more than
18% of the market share. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. The Exchange in
particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model whereby it pays credits to
Members that add liquidity and assesses fees to those that remove
liquidity. The Exchange's fee schedule sets forth the standard rebates
and rates applied per share for orders that provide and remove
liquidity, respectively. Particularly, for securities at or above
$1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.0018 per share for
orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee of $0.0030 per share for
orders that remove liquidity. Additionally, in response to the
competitive environment, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing which
provides Members opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced
fees where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered
pricing provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for
higher tier levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or
discounts for satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (January 23, 2022), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Liquidity Rebate
    As stated above, the Exchange currently provides a standard rebate
of $0.0018 per share for liquidity adding orders (i.e., those yielding
fee codes B,\5\ V,\6\ and Y \7\) in securities priced at or above
$1.00. Orders in securities priced below $1.00 that add liquidity are
free. The Exchange now proposes to decrease the current standard rebate
of $0.0018 per share to $0.0016 per share for orders that add liquidity
for securities priced at or above $1.00. Orders that add liquidity in
securities priced below $1.00 would continue to be free. Although this
proposed standard rebate for liquidity adding orders is lower than the
current base rate for such orders, the proposed rebate is in line with
similar rebates for liquidity adding orders in place on other
exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``B'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape B).
    \6\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``V'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape A).
    \7\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``Y'' are displayed orders adding
liquidity to BZX (Tape C).
    \8\ E.g., the Nasdaq base rebate ranges from $0.0015 to $0.00305
for liquidity adding orders in securities priced at or above $1.00.
See http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single MPID Investor Tiers
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the Single MPID Investor
Tier 3, which is currently described under footnote 4 of the fee
schedule. Particularly, this tier applies to orders yielding fee code
B, V, or Y and provides a $0.0034 per share rebate to MPIDs that have a
Step-Up ADAV \9\ as a percentage of TCV \10\ greater than or equal to
0.20% from September 2021 or MPIDs that have a Step-Up ADAV from
September 2021 greater than or equal to 20 million shares. No Member
has reached this tier in several months and the Exchange therefore no
longer wishes to, nor is it required to, maintain such a tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Step-Up ADAV'' means ADAV in the relevant baseline month
subtracted from current ADAV.
    \10\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Schedule Clean Up
    The Exchange proposes to update Footnote 19 of the Fee Schedule,
which is appended to fee codes B, V, and Y, to reflect that orders that
add liquidity to BZX for securities priced below $1.00 are free instead
of a rebate of $0.00009 per share. The Exchange notes that it amended
this rebate in May 2021 and that the ``Free'' rate is accurately
reflected in the Standard Rates table.\11\ However, the Exchange
inadvertently at that time omitted updating corresponding Footnote 19
of the Fees Schedule and seeks to do so now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 92013 (May 25, 2021) 86
FR 29312 (June 1, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2021-040).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange notes that it removed the Total Volume
tier from its Fee Code Schedule in December 2021,\12\ but did not
eliminate references to footnote 3 from fee codes B, V, and Y in Fee
Code table. Accordingly, the Exchange now proposes to remove references
to Footnote 3 from fee codes B, V, and Y, of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 34-93829 (December 20,
2021) 86 FR 73402 (December 20, 2021) [sic] (SRCboeBZX-2021-084).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5),\14\ in
particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members, issuers
and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The
proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed
to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the
Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to
the benefit of all Members, and thus is in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to
reduce the standard liquidity adding rebate is reasonable because the
proposed change represents a modest rebate decrease and Members will
continue to receive a rebate on liquidity adding orders, albeit at a
lower amount. The Exchange believes the proposed amendment is also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change
is equally applicable to all Members of the Exchange. Additionally, the
proposed rebate for liquidity adding orders is in-line with rebates
offered at other exchanges for similar transactions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Supra note 7 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to remove Single MPID

Investor Tier 3 is reasonable because no Member has achieved this tier
in several months. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to maintain
this tier and Members still have a number of other opportunities and a
variety of ways to receive enhanced rebates for displayed liquidity,
including the enhanced rebates under the Single MPID Investor Tiers 1
and 2. The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate this tier is
also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to
all Members.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to update
Footnote 19 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as
it does not change the fees or rebates assessed by the Exchange, but
rather updates the rate applicable to liquidity adding orders in
securities priced below $1.00 to accurately reflect the rate it adopted
in the rule filing submitted in May 2021. As such, the proposed rule
change is merely a clarification in the Fees Schedule which increases
transparency in the Fees Schedule and reduces potential confusion
regarding the appropriate rates for such orders. Similarly, the
proposal to remove references to footnote three from fee codes B, V,
and Y is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it
merely eliminates a reference to a reserved footnote.

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 intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Particularly, the proposed changes apply to all liquidity adding orders
equally, and thus applies to all Members equally. Additionally, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden
on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
    As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they
may participate on and direct their order flow, including other
equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading
systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of
the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single
equities exchange has more than 18% of the market share.\16\ Therefore,
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
order flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee
levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \17\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .''.\18\ Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes imposes any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Supra note 3 [sic].
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \18\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \20\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-008 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-CboeBZX-2022-008. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from

comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish
to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-CboeBZX-2022-008 and should be submitted on or before March 15,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03649 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P