[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20771-20773]
[FR Doc No: E9-10287]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59825; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NYSE Amex LLC Amending Rule 935NY--Order Exposure
Requirements

April 27, 2009.
    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 April 21, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the
``Exchange'') 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 amend its rules governing order exposure
requirements on the NYSE Amex System. This proposal will revise Rule
935NY. The text \4\ of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit
5 to the 19b-4 form. A copy of this filing is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal
office and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange requested that the Commission correct a
typographical error in this sentence. Telephone conversation between
Glenn Gsell, Managing Director, NYSE Amex, and Kristie Diemer,
Special Counsel, Commission, on April 27, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to reduce the exposure
period contained in Rule 935NY--Order Exposure Requirements, from three
seconds to one second.
    Rule 935NY provides that with respect to orders routed to the NYSE
Amex System, Users may not execute as principal orders they represent
as agent unless (i) agency orders are first exposed on the Exchange for
at least three (3) seconds or (ii) the User has been bidding or
offering on the Exchange for at least three (3) seconds prior to
receiving an agency order that is executable against such bid or offer.
    Specifically, order entry firms may not execute as principal,
orders they represent as agent unless; [sic] (i) the agency order has
first exposed on the NYSE Amex System for at least three seconds; [sic]
(ii) the order entry firm has been bidding or offering for at least
three seconds prior to receiving the agency order that is executable
against such bid or offer. During this three-second exposure period,
other market participants may enter orders to trade against the exposed
order. Under this proposal, the exposure periods contained in Rule
935NY would be reduced to one second.
    The Exchange notes that the existing three-second order exposure
period contained in Rule 935NY, is not necessarily long enough to allow
human interaction with the exposed orders. Rather, market participants
on NYSE Amex are sufficiently automated that they can react to these
orders electronically. In this context, NYSE Amex believes it would be
in all market participants' best interest to minimize the exposure
period to a time frame that continues to allow adequate time for market
participants to electronically respond, while at the same time reducing
any market risk associated with the longer exposure period. In this
respect, the Exchange states that its experience with the three-second
exposure time period indicates that one second would provide an
adequate response time.\5\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe
it is necessary or beneficial to the orders being exposed to continue
to subject

them to market risk for a full three seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ There are numerous market participants on NYSE Amex that
have the capability and already opt to respond within the first one
second of the present three-second exposure period, currently in
force for the NYSE Amex System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since NYSE Amex market participants have the ability [sic] react to
these orders electronically, and regularly do so in less than one
second, the Exchange believes that reducing the time period to one
second will continue to afford sufficient time to ensure effective
interaction with orders. At the same time, NYSE Amex believes that
reducing the time period to one second will allow it to provide
investors and other market participants with more timely executions,
thereby reducing market risk.
    A shortened exposure period would be fully consistent with the
electronic nature of the NYSE Amex System. In order to substantiate
that market participants on NYSE Amex would not be disadvantaged by a
reduced exposure period, the Exchange conducted a survey of Amex
Trading Permit Holders (``ATP Holders'') to find out whether they had
the systems capability available that would allow them to respond in a
meaningful way within the proposed timeframe.\6\ The Exchange surveyed
48 member firms, representing 132 ATP Holders, all of whom regularly
access the Exchange on an electronic basis,\7\ regarding the proposed
change to Rule 935NY, specifically the Exchange asked; 1. ``What is the
approximate turnaround time for your firm to take in, process and
respond to trading interest posted on NYSE Amex Options?'' and 2. ``Do
you foresee any problems if NYSE Amex Options reduces the exposure time
from three seconds to one second?'' Of the 6 different member firms
that responded to the Exchange's survey, four indicated that their
response time was less than one second, one declined to comment as to
their response time while the sixth said that they were not exactly
sure of their response time. None of the responding ATP Firms
anticipated any problems related to order processing if the Exchange
was to reduce the exposure period to one second. In addition, none of
the responding ATP Holders indicated to the Exchange that they were
opposed to the reduced exposure period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NYSE Amex introduced a new trading system on March 1, 2009.
In order to allow sufficient time for ATP Holders to evaluate the
new system, the Exchange requested ATP Holders respond to the survey
by April 1, 2009.
    \7\ Collectively, these 132 ATP Holders participated in excess
of 90% of all electronic orders executed on the NYSE Amex System
during the month of March 2009. The remaining 10% of transactions
generally consisted of customer orders executed against other
customer orders, or orders executed by non-ATP Holder Broker
Dealers. The Exchange did not survey ATP Holders who act as Floor
Brokers and transact business strictly on a manual basis.
    \8\ One respondent did indicate that it ``might be hard to
respond that rapidly'' when asked about the proposed one-second
exposure period, but then went on to state that they felt the
Exchange should make the change in order to match other options
Exchanges (rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the findings of the survey, the Exchange believes that the
proposed exposure period will continue to provide sufficient time for
market participants to respond, and compete for orders, while also
reducing some of the risks associated with a prolonged exposure period.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, because it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system. In particular, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide investors
with more timely execution of their options orders, while ensuring that
there is an adequate exposure of all orders on NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 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.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of this proposed
rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice in the Federal Register. The Commission is considering granting
accelerated approval of the proposed rule change at the end of a 15-day
comment period.

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-2009-15 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-2009-15. 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 inspection
and copying 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 NYSE Amex's principal office. 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-2009-15 and should
be submitted on or before May 20, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10287 Filed 5-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49781-49783]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0773; Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Bloomfield, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at
Bloomfield, IA. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review as part of the decommissioning of the Bloomfield non-
directional beacon (NDB).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0773/Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-14 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed

online at 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Bloomfield Municipal Airport, Bloomfield, IA, to
support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0773/
Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-14.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet at Bloomfield Municipal
Airport, Bloomfield, IA, by removing the Bloomfield NDB and the
associated extension from the airspace legal description.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review as part of the
decommissioning of the Bloomfield NDB.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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 JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Bloomfield, IA [Amended]

Bloomfield Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 40[deg]43'56'' N, long. 92[deg]25'42'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Bloomfield Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 4, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-17051 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18668-18669]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0683; FRL-8895-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Finding of Attainment for 1-Hour Ozone for the Milwaukee-
Racine, WI Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a July 28, 2008, request from the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) that EPA find that the
Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin (WI) nonattainment area has attained the
revoked 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0683, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E9-9363 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39682-39683]
[DOCID:fr12jy10-40]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0400; FRL-9174-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Boat Manufacturing (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVV) (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1966.04, OMB
Control Number 2060-0546

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 11,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0400 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32581), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0400, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Boat Production (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1966.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0546.
    ICR Status: This ICR is schedule to expire on September 30, 2010.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Boat Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVV) were proposed on July 14, 2000, and promulgated on August 22,
2001.
    This regulation covers resin and gel coat operations at fiberglass
boat manufacturers, paint and coating operations at aluminum boat
manufacturers, and carpet and fabric adhesive operations at all boat
manufacturers. Owners or operators of boat manufacturing facilities are
required to submit initial notification, performance tests, and
periodic reports. Respondents are also required to maintain records of
the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Semiannual reports are also required.
These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance; and are required, in general, of all sources subject to
NESHAP.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
five years following the date of such measurements,

maintain reports and records. Performance tests reports are required as
this is the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply
with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating
conditions under which compliance were achieved.
    All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In
the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV as
authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required
information consists of emissions date and other information that have
been determined to be private.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information are estimated to average 81
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining, information, and disclosing and providing information. All
existing ways will have to adjust to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements that have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Boat manufacturing.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 144.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, quarterly, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 23,543.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2,227,693 which includes $2,226,893
in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $800 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,784 hours in
this ICR as compared to the previous one. There is a difference of 159
responses as compared to the previous ICR of 448. This shift is
attributed to the fact that initial notification for existing sources
has already been achieved.

    Dated: July 6, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-16907 Filed 7-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80553-80556]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32089]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63558; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-100]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Orders

December 16, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On October 20, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to: (i) Add to Rule 900.3NY(h) a definition of
``Stock/Complex Order;'' (ii) revise Rule 963NY(d) to update the
provisions governing open outcry trading of Complex Orders and Stock/
option Orders and apply these provisions to Stock/Complex Orders; (iii)
delete Rule 963.1NY; (iv) add Rule 980NY(e) to establish an electronic
Complex Order Auction (``COA''); and (v) revise other provisions of
Rule 980NY to include Stock/Complex Orders. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 2,
2010.\3\ The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal.
This order approves 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. 63187 (October 27,
2010), 75 FR 67424 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Definition of Stock/Complex Order

    The proposal amends Rule 900.3NY(h) to add a definition of ``Stock/
Complex Order.'' Rule 900.3NY(h)(2) defines a ``Stock/Complex Order''
as the purchase or sale of a Complex Order, as defined in Rule
900.3NY(e), coupled with an order to buy or sell a stated number of
units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the
underlying stock (``convertible security'') representing either (A) the
same number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security as
are represented by the options leg of the Complex Order with the least
number of options contracts, or (B) the number of units of the
underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral position, but in
no case in a ratio greater than eight options contracts per unit of
trading of the underlying stock or convertible security established for
that series by the Clearing Corporation, as represented by the options
leg of the Complex Order with the least number of options contracts.

B. Revisions To Open Outcry Rules

    The proposal revises paragraph (d) of Rule 963NY, ``Priority and
Order Allocation Procedures--Open Outcry,'' to update the provisions
governing the trading of Complex Orders Stock/option Orders in open
outcry. Rule 963NY(d), as amended, will also apply to Stock/Complex
Orders trading in open outcry. According to the Exchange, the changes
to Rule 963NY(d) streamline and update the text of Rule 963NY(d), but
do not alter the Exchange's existing procedures for trading Complex
Orders or Stock/option Orders, or the priority of quotations and
orders. The Exchange notes that the Rule 963NY(d), as amended, is based
on Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') Rule
6.45(e).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CBOE Rule 6.45(e) states that ``A complex order as defined
in Rule 6.42.01 may be executed at a net debit or credit price with
another Trading Permit Holder without giving priority to equivalent
bids (offers) in the individual series legs that are represented in
the trading crowd or in the public customer limit order book
provided at least one leg of the order betters the corresponding bid
(offer) in the public customer limit order book by at least one
minimum trading increment as defined in Rule 6.42 (i.e., $0.10,
$0.05 or $0.01, as applicable) or a $0.01 increment, which increment
shall be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis.
Stock-option orders and security future-option orders, as defined in
Rule 1.1(ii)(a) and Rule 1.1(zz)(a), respectively, have priority
over bids (offers) of the trading crowd but not over bids (offers)
in the public customer limit order book.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 963(d), as amended, Complex Orders, as defined in Rule
900.3NY(e), and Stock/Complex Orders, as defined in Rule 900.3(h)(2),
may be executed at a net debit or credit with another ATP Holder
without giving priority to equivalent bids (offers) in the individual
series legs that are represented in the Trading Crowd or Customer limit
orders in the Consolidated Book, provided that at least one options leg
of the order betters the corresponding Customer bid (offer) in the
Consolidated Book by at least one minimum trading increment, as defined
in Rule 960NY (i.e., $0.10, $0.50, or $0.01, as applicable), or a $0.01
increment, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis.
Stock/option Orders, as defined in Rule 900.3(h)(1), have priority over
equivalent bids (offers) of the trading crowd, but not over equivalent
Customer bids (offers) in the Consolidated Book.
    In addition, Rule 963NY(d) provides that bids and offers for
Complex Orders, Stock/option Orders, and Stock/

Complex Orders may be expressed in $0.01 increments regardless of the
minimum increment otherwise applicable to the individual legs of the
order.
    The Exchange also proposes to delete Rule 963.1NY, ``Complex Order
Transactions--Open Outcry.'' According to the Exchange, Rule 963NY(d)
describes priority for all Complex Orders and Stock/option Orders. The
Exchange states that Rule 963.1NY describes procedures for executing
Complex Orders in open outcry, but does not describe any execution
priority, obligation, or privilege that is not already described in
other rules. In addition, Rule 963.1NY describes procedures only for
Complex Orders with two options legs, rather than for all Complex
Orders. The Exchange notes, further, that Rule 963.1NY(f) describes a
narrow circumstance, relating to a Locked Book Market, that was more
appropriate when an Order Book Official maintained the Public Customer
Book. According to the Exchange, Rule 963NY(d), as amended, addresses
this and similar circumstances more clearly. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to delete Rule 963.1NY.

C. Electronic COA

    As described more fully in the Notice,\5\ the Exchange proposes to
adopt Rule 980NY(e), which establishes an electronic request for
responses COA for Complex Orders, Stock/option Orders, and Stock/
Complex Orders (``Electronic Complex Orders''). The Exchange states
that the COA is similar to the electronic complex order auction
provided for in CBOE Rule 6.53(d), with a priority change based on
Nasdaq OMX Phlx, Inc. Rule 1080, Commentary .08(e)(vi)(A)(2).
Electronic Complex Orders processed through the Exchange's COA may be
executed without consideration to prices of the same complex orders
that might be available on other exchanges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See note 3, supra.
    \6\ See Rule 980NY(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may determine, on a class-by-class basis, the
Electronic Complex Orders that are eligible for a COA (``COA-eligible
orders''), based on the order's marketability, size, number of series,
and order origin type (i.e., Customer, broker-dealer that is not a
Market-Maker or options exchange specialist, and/or Market-Maker or
options exchange specialist).\7\ Upon receipt of a COA-eligible order,
and direction from the entering ATP Holder that an auction be
initiated, the Exchange will send an RFR message to ATP Holders that
subscribe to RFR messages.\8\ The RFR message will identify the
component series, the size of the order and any contingencies, but not
the side of the market.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 980NY(e)(1)(A).
    \8\ See Rule 980NY(e)(2).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Market-Maker with an appointment in the relevant option class,
and each ATP Holder acting as agent for orders resting at the top of
the Consolidated Book in the relevant option series, may submit
responses to the RFR message (``RFR Responses'') during the Response
Time Interval.\10\ RFR Responses, which may be submitted in $0.01
increments, will be ranked and displayed in the Consolidated Book.\11\
The Exchange will determine the length of the Response Time Interval,
which will not exceed one second.\12\ The obligations of Rule 935NY,
``Order Exposure Requirements,'' are separate from the duration of the
Response Time Interval.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 980NY(e)(4).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See Rule 980NY(e)(3).
    \13\ Id. Rule 935NY provides that: ``With respect to orders
routed to the NYSE Amex System, Users may not execute as principal
orders they represent as agent unless (i) agency orders are first
exposed on the Exchange for at least one (1) second or (ii) the User
has been bidding or offering on the Exchange for at least one (1)
second prior to receiving an agency order that is executable against
such bid or offer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RFR Responses may be modified, but may not be withdrawn, at any
time prior to the end of the Response Time Interval.\14\ At the end of
the Response Time Interval, RFR Responses are firm with respect to the
COA-eligible order, and RFR Responses that exceed the size of the COA-
eligible order are also firm with respect to other incoming COA-
eligible orders and RFR Responses that are received during the Response
Time Interval.\15\ Any RFR Responses that are not accepted in full or
in a permissible ratio will expire at the end of the Response Time
Interval.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 980NY(e)(7).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the conclusion of the Response Time Interval, a COA-eligible
order will be executed in whole or in part against the best priced
contra side interest.\17\ At the same net price, a COA-eligible order
will execute first against individual orders and quotes in the leg
markets resting in the Consolidated Book prior to the initiation of the
COA, provided that the COA-eligible order can be executed in full, or
in a permissible ratio, by orders and quotes in the Consolidated Book;
second, against Customer Electronic Complex Orders resting in the
Consolidated Book before, or that are received during, the Response
Time Interval, and Customer RFR Responses, allocated on a size pro rata
basis as defined in Rule 964NY(b)(3); and third, against non-Customer
Electronic Complex Orders resting in the Consolidated Book or placed in
the Consolidated Book during the Response Time Interval, and non-
Customer RFR Responses, allocated on a size pro rata basis as defined
in Rule 964NY(b)(3).\18\ Individual orders and quotes in the leg
markets that cause the derived Complex Best Bid/Offer to be improved
during the COA and match the best RFR Responses and/or Electronic
Complex Orders received during the Response Time Interval will be
filled after Electronic Complex Orders and RFR Responses at the same
net price.\19\ Any unexecuted portion of a COA-eligible order will be
placed in the Consolidated Book or, if marketable, will initiate
another COA.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Rule 980NY(e)(5) and (6).
    \18\ See Rule 980NY(e)(6)(A)-(C).
    \19\ See Rule 980NY(e)(6)(D).
    \20\ See Rule 980NY(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The COA rules also address the handling of unrelated Electronic
Complex Orders received during a COA,\21\ and the effect of a change in
the best bid or offer in the leg markets.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Incoming Electronic Complex Orders received during the
Response Time Interval that are on the opposite side of the market
from, and marketable against, the COA-eligible order will be ranked
and executed in price/time priority with RFR Responses by account
type, as provided in Rule 980NY(e)(6), and any remaining balance of
the initiating COA-eligible order or the incoming Electronic Complex
Order will be placed in the Consolidated Book. Incoming COA-eligible
orders received during the Response Time Interval that are one the
same side of the market and at a price that is equal to the price of
the original COA-eligible order will join the COA, and a message
with the updated size will be published. The incoming order(s) and
the initiating COA-eligible order will be ranked and executed in
price/time priority, and any remaining balance of the initiating
order or the incoming order(s) will be placed in the Consolidated
Book. Similarly, an incoming COA-eligible order on the same side of
the market as the original COA-eligible order with a price that is
worse than the price of the original COA-eligible order will join
the COA, and will be ranked and executed with the initiating COA-
eligible order in price/time priority. An incoming COA-eligible
order on the same side of the market as the original COA-eligible
order with a price that is better than the price of the original
COA-eligible order will cause the auction to end, and the initiating
COA-eligible order will be executed in accordance with Rule
980NY(e)(6). The COA-eligible order that caused the auction to end
will then be executed, and any unexecuted portion will either be
placed in the Consolidated Book or, if marketable, will initiate
another COA. See Rule 980NY(e)(8).
    \22\ See Rule 980NY(e)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A pattern or practice of submitting unrelated orders that cause a
COA to conclude early, or the dissemination to third parties of
information related to COA-eligible orders, will be deemed

conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Rule 980NY(e), Commentary .04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Additional Changes

    The proposal modifies Rule 980NY, Commentary .02 to provide that at
least one leg of an Electronic Complex Order must trade at a price that
is a least $0.01 better than the corresponding Customer bid or offer in
the Consolidated Book if the Exchange has designated the options class
as eligible for COAs. The proposal also amends Rule 980NY, Commentary
.03(a) to require the execution of the stock component of a Stock/
Complex Order to be consistent with the rules of the stock execution
venue. In addition, the proposal revises Rule 980NY, Commentary .03(c)
to establish the execution sequence for Stock/Complex Orders submitted
to the Exchange's Complex Matching Engine (``CME''). The proposal also
amends Rule 980NY, Commentary .03(d), to provide that the requirement
to trade with existing Customer interest at the Exchange's best bid
(offer) before executing the options legs of a Stock/Complex Order will
apply only if there are Customer orders at the best bid (offer) for
each of the options legs of the Stock/Complex Order.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds 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.\24\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\25\ which requires, in part, that the rules
of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to 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. The Commission
finds that the proposal is designed to facilitate the trading of
Complex Orders, Stock/option Orders, and Stock/Complex Orders on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 900.3NY(h)(2) defines a new order type, the Stock/Complex
Order, that could provide market participants with flexibility by
permitting orders composed of an underlying stock or convertible
security and multiple options legs. As discussed above, a Stock/Complex
Order must be comprised of a Complex Order, as defined in Rule
900.3NY(e), and a stock leg.\26\ Under the proposal, the options legs
of a Stock/Complex Order must (a) satisfy the conditions in the
definition of Complex Order; \27\ and (b) at least one options leg of a
Complex Order or a Stock/Complex Order must trade at a price that is
better than the corresponding Customer bid or offer for the same
series.\28\ Accordingly, the priority provisions applicable to Stock/
Complex Orders are consistent with the priority provisions applicable
to Complex Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Rule 900.3NY(h)(2).
    \27\ See Rule 900.3NY(e). Specifically, Rule 900.3NY(e) states
that a Complex Order is an order involving the simultaneous purchase
and/or sale of two or more different option series in the same
underlying security, for the same account, in a ratio that is equal
to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to
three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of executing a particular
investment strategy.
    \28\ See Rules 963NY(d) and 980NY, Commentary .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 963NY(d), as amended, sets forth the procedures and priority
requirements for Complex Orders, Stock/option Orders, and Stock/Complex
Orders trading in open outcry. As described more fully above, Rule
963NY(d) states that Complex Orders and Stock/Complex Orders may be
executed at a net debt or credit with another ATP Holder without giving
priority to equivalent bids (offers) in the individual series legs that
are represented in the Trading Crowd or Customer limit orders in the
Consolidated Book, provided that at least one options leg of the order
betters the corresponding Customer bid (offer) by at least one minimum
trading increment or by a $0.01 increment, as applicable. Stock/option
Orders have priority over equivalent bids (offers) in the Trading
Crowd, but not over equivalent Customer bids (offers) in the
Consolidated Book. The Commission notes that Rule 963NY(d), as amended,
is substantially similar to CBOE Rule 6.45(e). According to the
Exchange, the proposal streamlines and updates Rule 963NY(d), but does
not substantively alter the procedures or priorities for trading
Complex Order and Stock/option Orders in open outcry.
    The proposal also applies the priorities and procedures in Rule
963NY(d) to Stock/Complex Orders. The Commission believes that it is
reasonable to apply these procedures and priorities to Stock/Complex
Orders to provide consistent treatment of Complex Orders, which are
comprised of multiple options legs, and Stock/Complex Orders, which are
comprised of multiple options legs and the underlying stock or
convertible security. The Commission believes, further, that the
changes to Rule 963NY(d), together with the deletion of Rule 963.1NY,
which has become outdated, should help to assure that the Exchange's
rules clearly describe the procedures and priorities for executing
Complex Orders, Stock/Complex Orders, and Stock/option Orders in open
outcry.
    The Commission believes that the electronic COA provided in new
Rule 980NY(e) could facilitate the trading of Complex Orders, Stock/
Complex Orders, and Stock/option Orders and provide price improvement
opportunities for these orders. As described more fully above, Market
Makers with an appointment in the relevant options class and ATP
Holders acting as agent for orders resting at the top of the
Consolidated Book will be able to submit RFR Responses. At the
conclusion of a COA, the auctioned order may execute against individual
orders or quotes, Customer Electronic Complex Orders or RFR Responses,
or non-Customer Electronic Complex Orders or RFR Responses, as provided
in Rule 980NY(e)(6). The Commission notes that the Exchange's COA is
substantially similar to the electronic complex order auction provided
under CBOE Rule 6.53C(d).
    The proposal revises Rule 980NY, Commentary .02, to provide that,
for options classes designated as eligible for COAs, at least one leg
of an Electronic Complex Order must trade at a price that is better
than the corresponding Customer bids or offers in the same series in
the Consolidated Book by at least $0.01. The Commission believes that
the $0.01 price improvement requirement is appropriate in this
circumstance in light of the price competition for Electronic Complex
Orders driven by the Consolidated Book and the availability of the COA.
    In addition, the Commission notes that the changes to Rule 980NY,
Commentary .03, relating to the electronic trading of Stock/Complex
Orders, are consistent with the treatment in CBOE Rule 6.53C,
Commentary .06, of orders composed of stock and multiple options legs.
The requirement in Rule 980NY, Commentary .03(a) that the stock leg of
a Stock/Complex Order be executed consistent with the rules of the
stock execution venue is consistent with the requirement in CBOE Rule
6.53C, Commentary .06(a), that the stock leg of an order be executed
consistent with the order execution rules of the CBOE Stock

Exchange. The execution sequence for Stock/Complex Orders in Rule
980NY, Commentary .03(b) for orders submitted to the Exchange's CME is
consistent with the execution sequence set forth in CBOE Rule 6.53C,
Commentary .06(c), and the requirement in Rule 980NY, Commentary .03(d)
to trade with Customer orders only if there are Customer orders at the
Exchange's best quote for each of the options legs of a Stock/Complex
Order is consistent with CBOE Rule 6.53C, Commentary .06(f).
    Rule 980NY, Commentary .04 provides that a pattern or practice of
submitting unrelated orders that cause a COA to conclude early will be
deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of
trade, as will the dissemination to third parties of information
related to COA-eligible orders. These provisions, which are comparable
to CBOE Rule 6.53C, Commentary .05, will require the Exchange to
surveil for, and should help to deter, potential abuses of the COA
process. Finally, the Commission notes that the order exposure
obligations in Rule 935NY apply to orders submitted to a COA, and that
these order exposure obligations are separate from the duration of the
Response Time Interval.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Rule 980NY(e)(3) and note 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\30\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-100)
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32089 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 199)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58489-58491]
[DOCID:fr16oc07-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28922; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-132-AD;
Amendment 39-15225; AD 2007-21-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    An incident occurred on one A300-600 aircraft at parking brake
application. Both engines were running, the aircraft started moving
again despite parking brake application. Captain tried to stop the
aircraft via the pedals but, as the parking brake selector valve was
selected, the aircraft could not be stopped (as per design,
activation of the parking brake inhibits the other braking modes,
and consequently prevents the recovery of the normal braking through
the pedals). As part of the investigation, the pressure limiter was
removed and examined. The expertise revealed a metallic wire aimed
at reducing the section of one port of this equipment was found
broken. A part of this wire partially obstructed the hole receiving
this wire, thus delaying the build up of parking brake pressure.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 20, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 20,
2007.

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: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1622; 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 August 16, 2007 (72
FR 45976). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    An incident occurred on one A300-600 aircraft at parking brake
application. Both engines were running, the aircraft started moving
again despite parking brake application. Captain tried to stop the
aircraft via the pedals but, as the parking brake selector valve was
selected, the aircraft could not be stopped (as per design,
activation of the parking brake inhibits the other braking modes,
and consequently prevents the recovery of the normal braking through
the pedals). As part of the investigation, the pressure limiter was
removed and examined. The expertise revealed a metallic wire aimed
at reducing the section of one port of this equipment was found
broken. A part of this wire partially obstructed the hole receiving
this wire, thus delaying the build up of parking brake pressure. In
order to avoid recurrence of the failure mode described above, EASA
issued Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-0178 to require the
replacement of the parking brake pressure limiter (FIN 323292).
    During embodiment of SB (Service Bulletin) 32-2133 on an A310 as
per AD 2006-0178 (EASA AD 2006-0178 corresponds to FAA AD 2007-02-
21, amendment 39-14908), an operator reported that the modified
pressure limiter could not be fitted. Subsequent investigation
concluded that A310 installation being slightly different from A300-
600 aircraft, the approved solution was not directly adaptable to
A310 aircraft.

    * * * This new AD, dealing with the same subject, requires the
replacement of the brake pressure limiter by accomplishment of
Airbus SB A310-32-2133, which has been revised to include the
adaptation kit for A310 aircraft.

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

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 68 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 $80 per work-hour. Labor costs may be covered under warranty as
described in the service information. 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 $32,640, or $480 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 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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, 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

0
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:

2007-21-07 Airbus: Amendment 39-15225. Docket No. FAA-2007-28922;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-132-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
20, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310 series airplanes,
certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-32-2133, Revision 02, dated February 26, 2007,
has been embodied in service.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    An incident occurred on one A300-600 aircraft at parking brake
application. Both engines were running, the aircraft started moving
again despite parking brake application. Captain tried to stop the
aircraft via the pedals but, as the parking brake selector valve was
selected, the aircraft could not be stopped (as per design,
activation of the parking brake inhibits the other braking modes,
and consequently prevents the recovery of the normal braking through
the pedals). As part of the investigation, the pressure limiter was
removed and examined. The expertise revealed a metallic wire aimed
at reducing the section of one port of this equipment was found
broken. A part of this wire partially obstructed the hole receiving
this wire, thus delaying the build up of parking brake pressure. In
order to avoid recurrence of the failure mode described above, EASA
(European Aviation Safety Agency), issued Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 2006-0178 to require the replacement of the parking brake
pressure limiter (FIN 323292).
    During embodiment of SB (Service Bulletin) 32-2133 on an A310 as
per AD 2006-0178 [EASA AD 2006-0178 corresponds to FAA AD 2007-02-
21, amendment 39-14908], an operator reported that the modified
pressure limiter could not be fitted. Subsequent investigation
concluded that A310 installation being slightly different from A300-
600 aircraft, the approved solution was not directly adaptable to
A310 aircraft.
    * * * This new AD, dealing with the same subject, requires the
replacement of the brake

pressure limiter by accomplishment of Airbus SB A310-32-2133, which
has been revised to include the adaptation kit for A310 aircraft.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 10 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the parking brake pressure limiter (FIN 323292), in
accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-32-2133, Revision 02, dated February 26, 2007.
    (2) [Reserved]

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No difference.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) 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. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0151, dated
May 22, 2007; Airbus Service Bulletin A310-32-2133, Revision 02,
dated February 26, 2007; and Messier-Bugatti Service Bulletin
C24264-32-848, dated February 15, 2006, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A310-32-2133, Revision
02, dated February 26, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html
.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 3, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-20137 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P