[Federal Register: October 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 61267-61268]
[DOCID:fr21oc05-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL05-18-001]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of
Compliance Filing

October 17, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 11, 2005, the California Independent
System Operator Corporation in compliance with the Commission's Order
issued July 26, 2005, tendered for filing a refund report.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on November 10, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5833 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10650-10652]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04813]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0739; FRL-9975-34-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Emissions Statement Requirement for the 2008 Ozone
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision fulfills Pennsylvania's
emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0739 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gavin Huang,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 27, 2008, EPA strengthened the ozone standard from 0.08 to
0.075 parts per million (ppm). 73 FR 16436. On May 21, 2012, EPA
designated areas as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which
include the following counties in Pennsylvania: Carbon, Lehigh,
Northampton, Lancaster, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery,
Philadelphia, Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette,
Washington, Westmoreland, and Berks counties. See 40 CFR 81.339.

    Additionally, Pennsylvania is located in the ozone transport region
(OTR) established by Congress in section 184 of the CAA. Pursuant to
section 184(b)(2), any stationary source that emits or has the
potential to emit at least 50 tons per year (tpy) of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) shall be considered a major stationary source and
subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major
stationary sources if the area were classified as a moderate
nonattainment area. See CAA section 184. Thus, states within the OTR
are subject to plan (or SIP) requirements in CAA section 182(b)
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Also, section 182(f)(1) of
the CAA requires that the plan provisions required for major stationary
sources of VOC also apply to major stationary sources of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) for states with moderate (or worse) ozone
nonattainment areas. A major stationary source of NOX is
defined as a stationary facility or source of air pollutants which
directly emits, or has the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of
NOX. See CAA section 302(j).
    Section 182 of the CAA identifies additional plan submissions and
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, section
182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that states develop and submit rules
which establish annual reporting requirements for certain stationary
sources. Sources that are within marginal (or worse) ozone
nonattainment areas must annually report the actual emissions of
NOX and VOC to the state. However, states may waive
reporting requirements for sources that emit under 25 tpy of
NOX and VOC if the state provides an inventory of emissions
from such class or category of sources. See CAA section
182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
    In summary, because Pennsylvania is located in the OTR,
Pennsylvania sources that are located in ozone attainment areas and
emit above 50 tpy of VOC or 100 tpy of NOX are considered
major sources and subject to the requirements of major stationary
sources in moderate (or worse) nonattainment area, such as an emissions
statement submission required by CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). See CAA
sections 182(f) and 184(b)(2). Pennsylvania sources that are located in
designated marginal (or worse) nonattainment areas must also submit an
emissions statement as required by CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). As stated
previously, states may waive reporting requirements for sources that
emit under the 25 tpy NOX and VOC threshold if the state
provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of
sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182.\1\ See section
182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For further information on the emissions statement reporting
requirements, see ``Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission
Statement Program (July 1992)'' https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/emission_statement_program_zypdf.pdf, pp. 5-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 3, 2017, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a
SIP revision to satisfy the emissions statement requirement of section
182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In the submittal,
PADEP also submitted a certification for its nonattainment new source
review (NNSR) program, which will be addressed in a separate rulemaking
action.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2881), EPA approved Pennsylvania's SIP
submittal which included Pennsylvania regulations that satisfy the
emission reporting requirements in CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).
Pennsylvania's emissions reporting requirements are codified in the
Pennsylvania Code at 25 Pa. Code 135.21 ``Emissions Statements.''
    25 Pa. Code 135.21 requires that stationary sources or facilities
that emit NOX or VOC and are located in an area designated
by the CAA as a marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme ozone
nonattainment area or stationary sources or facilities that are located
in the OTR (and not in an area designated as a marginal or worse
nonattainment area) and emit or have the potential to emit 100 tons or
more of NOX or 50 tons or more of VOC per year, submit an
annual emissions statement. Because Pennsylvania is located in the OTR,
sources that are located in attainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
and emit above 50 tpy of VOC and 100 tpy of NOX are
considered major sources and subject to the requirements of major
stationary sources in moderate (or worse) nonattainment area, such as
an emissions statement submission as required by CAA section
182(a)(3)(B). See CAA sections 182(f) and 184(b)(2). This statement
must show, in a form as PADEP may prescribe, for classes or categories
of sources: The actual emissions of NOX or VOC from that
source for each reporting period, a description of the method used to
calculate the emissions, and the time period over which the calculation
is based. The statement must be submitted by a company officer or plant
manager who can verify the source's actual emissions.
    Under 25 Pa. Code 135.21(d), sources that emit less than 25 tons of
NOX or VOC per year are not required to submit the mandatory
emissions statement per 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a) if PADEP provides EPA
with an inventory of emissions from the class or category of sources
based on the use of the emission factors established by the
Administrator. As previously mentioned, per CAA section
182(a)(3)(B)(ii), states may waive reporting requirements for sources
under 25 tpy of NOX and VOC if the state provides an
inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as
required by CAA sections 172 and 182.
    In the November 3, 2017 SIP submittal, Pennsylvania states that,
upon review, the Commonwealth certifies that the existing emissions
statement program continues to comply with the 2008 ozone NAAQS
requirements. See 60 FR 2881 (January 12, 1995). EPA finds that 25 Pa.
Code 135.21 continues to satisfy section 182(a)(3)(B) because the
existing rule is applicable to the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and requires stationary sources that emit NOX or VOC (at
required thresholds above 25 tpy in designated ozone nonattainment
areas and above 50 tpy VOC or 100 tpy NOX in ozone
attainment areas in the OTR) to submit an emissions statement to the
Commonwealth detailing the sources' emissions. As previously mentioned,
per CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii), states may waive sources that emit
less than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC if the state provides an
inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as
required by CAA section 172 and 182. Pennsylvania does provide
emissions inventories for ozone nonattainment areas as required by CAA
section 172(c)(3).\2\ EPA finds Pennsylvania's emissions' thresholds
for sources that are required to submit an emissions statement meet CAA
requirements in sections 182 (plan submissions and requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas) and 184 (OTR requirements). See also
``Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program (July
1992).'' Therefore, EPA has determined that 25 Pa. Code 135.21, which
is currently in the Pennsylvania SIP, is appropriate to address the
emissions

statement requirement in section 182(a)(3)(B) and is proposing to
approve this SIP revision. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; 2011 Base Year Inventories for
the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, and
Reading Areas, and the Pennsylvania Portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City Area,'' 81 FR 24492 (April 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the November 3, 2017 Pennsylvania SIP
revision certifying that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved emissions
statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of
section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 proposed rule, which proposes to approve
Pennsylvania's certification that Pennsylvania's SIP-approved emissions
statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of
section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 23, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-04813 Filed 3-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18326-18328]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07753]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80441; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2017-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

April 12, 2017.
    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 3, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 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 the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective April 3, 2017. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule effective
April 3, 2017. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adjust certain
fees and to modify certain incentives and qualifications by broadening
the base of order flow and trading activity to make the different
qualifications more achievable to a variety of market participants.
    Currently, the Exchange charges all participants a fee for orders
that are executed by taking liquidity from the disseminated market
(``Take Liquidity Fee,'' or ``Take Fee''), and offers credits (or
reduced fees) for executions resulting from posting trading interest
that is included in the disseminated market (``Post Liquidity''
credit). For non-Customers, the Exchange currently charges a per
contract Take Fee of $1.08 for executions in non-Penny pilot issues.\4\
The Exchange proposes to increase this Take Fee to $1.10 per contract,
which is within the range of fees charged by competing option
exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that for purposes of this fee filing,
``non-Customers'' include: Lead Market Makers, NYSE Arca Market
Makers, Firm and Broker Dealers and Professional Customers.
    \5\ See e.g., NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and Rebates, available
here, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=optionsPricing and
Bats BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, available here, https://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also currently provides a Post Liquidity per contract
credit of $0.28 to Lead Market Makers (``LMMs'') and NYSE Arca Market
Makers for executions in Penny Pilot Issues. The Exchange proposes to
increase the Post Liquidity credit for LMMs to $0.32 per contract. The
Exchange also proposes that the $0.04 per contract increase in the Post
Liquidity credit would also be available to LMMs that are eligible to
receive any other posting credits for executions in Penny Pilot
Issues--namely eligible volume per the ``Market Maker Monthly Posting
Credit Tiers and Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues
and SPY'' (the ``MM Posting Tiers''). For instance, if an LMM qualifies
for the Super Tier in the MM Posting Tiers, the LMM would receive a
total per contract credit for executions in Penny Pilot issues in their
LMM appointment of $0.37, plus the $0.04

Post Liquidity credit, for a combined per contract credit of $0.41.
    The Exchange also proposes to offer a $0.02 per contract Take
Liquidity Discount for executions in Non-Penny Pilot Issues for non-
Customers that achieve at least 0.65% of Total Industry Customer equity
and ETF option ADV (``TCADV'') from non-Customer liquidity removing
orders in all issues. The proposed discount is similar to the existing
discount that is available for executions in Penny Issues and includes
transaction volume from the OTP Holder's or OTP Firm's affiliates or
its Appointed OFP or Appointed MM.
    The Exchange also provides various incentives to OTP Holders and
OTP Firms (``OTPs'') to achieve enhanced posted liquidity credits, some
of which are based on achieving certain percentages of NYSE Arca Equity
daily activity, also known as ``cross-asset pricing.'' The Exchange
proposes to replace one of the alternative qualifications for the Super
Tier II in the MM Posting Tiers with a new cross-asset pricing credit
by achieving a level of options activity and achieving a level of NYSE
Arca Equity activity.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange proposes to eliminate the current Super Tier II
qualification basis that requires an OTP to achieve at least 1.60%
of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV from Customer
and Professional Customer orders in all issues, with at least 1.20%
of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV from Customer
and Professional Customer Posted Orders in all issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, as proposed, an OTP would qualify for Super Tier II
if the OTP achieves at least 0.20% of ICADV from Market Maker posted
orders in all issues, plus ETP Holder and Market Maker posted volume in
Tape B Securities (``Tape B Adding ADV'') that is at least 1.50% of US
Tape B consolidated average daily volume (``CADV'') for the billing
month executed on NYSE Arca Equity Market. The credit applicable to
Super Tier II would remain the same (i.e., $0.42 per contract).\7\ The
Exchange believes that by providing the proposed alternative
qualification basis for posted orders in Penny Pilot issues from Market
Makers would encourage an increased level of activity in all issues,
which in turn encourages tighter market spreads and increased
liquidity, which benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ At [sic] The Exchange is not proposing any substantive
change to the alternative qualification basis for achieving Super
Tier II, which requires at least 1.60% of Total Industry Customer
equity and ETF option ADV from Market Maker orders in all issues,
with at least 0.90% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option
ADV from Market Maker Posted Orders in Penny Pilot and Non-Penny
Pilot Issues. However, the Exchange proposes to replace reference in
this tier to ``Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Issues'' to ``all
Issues,'' which should add clarity, transparency and internal
consistency to the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to add clarification to Endnote 8,
which describes transactions for qualifications for the various credits
or discounts. The Exchange proposes to modify the Endnote such that the
transactions for qualification referenced in Endnote 8 would be for
various credits and discounts. Further, the Exchange proposes to add a
clarifying sentence that ``references to Market Maker volumes and
executions are inclusive of transactions in issues in the Market
Maker's LMM appointment'' and an additional statement that ``references
to LMM transactions apply solely to transactions in the LMM's
appointment.''
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\9\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee increase is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all
non-Customer Take Liquidity transactions in non-Penny Pilot issues and
is within the range of fees charged by competing option exchanges.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed enhanced credit for posted
liquidity for LMMs in Penny Pilot issues is reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory because LMMs have heightened obligations
for issues in their allocation that do not apply to other market
participants. Moreover, LMMs must continue to meet their obligations
despite market fluctuations and ebbs and flows in trading activity,
while other market participants may rapidly add or drop interest in an
issue.
    The Exchange believes the proposed Take Fee Discount and
modification to Super Tier II of the MM Posting Tiers are reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the changes would be
available to all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and
non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes the creation of a Take
Fee discount in non-Penny Pilot Issues available to Lead Market Makers,
Market Makers, Firms, Broker Dealers and Professional Customers is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it is
applicable to all participants other than Customers, who pay a much
lower Take Liquidity Fee.
    Modifications to the Market Maker Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and
Qualifications for Penny Pilot Issues and SPY are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the changes to the Super Tier II for
Market Makers and Lead Market Makers would apply to all Market Makers
and Lead Market Makers on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
Further, they are not unfairly discriminatory because other non-
Customer participants do not have the burden of Market Making
obligations.
    In addition, the proposed changes are designed to incent market
participants to increase the orders sent directly to the Exchange and
therefore provide liquidity that supports the quality of price
discovery and promotes market transparency to the benefit of all market
participants. Further, the proposed modifications are reasonable,
equitable, and non-discriminatory because they would allow
qualification through activity combined with activity of affiliates or
Appointed OFP, including activity on the NYSE Arca Equity Market. Thus,
the Exchange believes the proposed modifications are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they encourage more
participants to qualify for the various incentives, including
encouraging more participants to have affiliated or appointed order
flow directed to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes the proposed modification to Endnote 8 is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed change is intended to clarify that the calculations for
qualifications for monthly posting would be determined for credits and
discounts, rather than credits or discounts.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed non-substantive change
to the alternative qualification basis for achieving Super Tier II is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it would
add clarity, transparency and internal consistency to the Fee
Schedule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, 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 Exchange believes that the proposed
changes would encourage competition, including by attracting additional
liquidity to the Exchange, which would continue to make the Exchange a
more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution and
price discovery. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
would impair the ability of any market participants or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets. Further, the incentive would be available to all
similarly-situated participants, and, as such, the proposed change
would not impose a disparate burden on competition either among or
between classes of market participants and may, in fact, encourage
competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed enhanced credits for LMMs
would not impose an unfair burden on competition because the LMMs have
heightened obligations for issues in their allocation that do not apply
to other market participants.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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 foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \13\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-35 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-NYSEArca-2017-35. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-35, and should
be submitted on or before May 9, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07753 Filed 4-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 38799]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Advisory Circular (AC) 20-159, Obtaining Design and Production
Approval of Airport Moving Map Display Applications Intended for
Electronic Flight Bag Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent to cancel AC 20-159, Obtaining Design and
Production Approval of Airport Moving Map Display Applications Intended
for Electronic Flight Bag Systems.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) intent to cancel AC 20-159. This cancellation will result in no
new approval of technical standard order authorizations (TSOA) for an
``incomplete system'' issued for Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-165,
Electronic Map Display Equipment for Graphical Depiction of Aircraft
Position. Therefore, the guidance contained in AC 20-159 allowing
applicants to obtain a design and production approval using the
software and database for an airport moving map display (AMMD) intended
for use on a Class 2 electronic flight bag (EFB) for ground operations,
will no longer be available. FAA AC 120-76C, Guidelines for the
Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Use of Electronic Flight
Bags, dated May 9, 2014, replaces AC 20-159 and provides guidance for
applicants seeking authorization to display an own-ship symbol limited
to the airport surface as a Type B application for use on any EFB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional details, please
contact: Mr. Brad Miller, AIR-130, Federal Aviation Administration,
Aircraft Certification Service, Systems and Equipment Standards Branch,
470 L'Enfant Plaza Suite 4102, Washington, DC 20024, Telephone (202)
267-8533, FAX: (202)<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In mid-March 2007, the FAA Administrator directed FAA to publish
guidance by the end of April 2007 to facilitate the use of an AMMD
application on EFBs and to streamline the certification means to deploy
this safety enhancement to address airport runway incursions. AC 20-159
provided EFB AMMD applicant guidance to obtain TSO-C165 software-only
TSO authorization requiring the need to obtain a design or production
approval. However, AC 120-76C later introduced guidance to necessitate
only an operator-based evaluation submitted to an FAA inspector for EFB
hardware and software application authorization. The FAA envisions all
new authorizations for use of AMMD functionality on EFBs be obtained
under AC 120-76C as a Type B application.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2015.
Susan J.M. Cabler,
Acting Manager, Design, Manufacturing, & Airworthiness Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16556 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66349]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities; Requests for Comments:
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection; Training and
Qualification Requirements for Check Airmen and Flight Instructors

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The rule allows some experienced pilots who would otherwise
qualify as flight instructors or check airmen, but who are not
medically eligible to hold the requisite medical certificate, to
perform flight instructor or check airmen functions in a simulator.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0600.
    Title: Training and Qualification Requirements for Check Airmen and
Flight Instructors
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Parts 121.411(d),
121.412(d), 135.337(d), and 135.338(d) require the collection of this
data. This collection is necessary to insure that instructors and check
airmen have completed necessary training and checking required to
perform instructor and check airmen functions.
    Respondents: Approximately 3,000 check airmen and flight
instructors.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 seconds.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 13 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Dated: Issued in Washington, DC on October 20, 2011.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-27632 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P