[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15376-15380]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05988]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71722; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2014-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To
Establish Pricing for the Retail Liquidity Program and Make Certain
Changes Relating to Open Orders

March 13, 2014.
    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 February 28, 2014, 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 Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to (i)
establish pricing for the Retail Liquidity Program and (ii) make
certain changes relating to open orders. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective March 1, 2014. The text of 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (i) establish
pricing for the Retail Liquidity Program and (ii) make certain changes
relating to open orders. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
change effective March 1, 2014.
Retail Liquidity Program
    The Retail Liquidity Program has been approved by the Commission to
operate for one year as a pilot program.\4\ The Retail Liquidity
Program is designed to attract additional retail order flow to the
Exchange for NYSE Arca-listed securities and securities traded pursuant
to unlisted trading privileges (``UTP Securities''), excluding
securities listed on New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), while also
providing the potential for price improvement to such order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71176 (December 23,
2013), 78 FR 79524 (December 30, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-107).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two new classes of market participants were created under the
Retail Liquidity Program: (1) Retail Member Organizations
(``RMOs''),\5\ which are eligible to submit certain retail order flow
(``Retail Orders'') \6\ to the Exchange, and (2) Retail Liquidity
Providers (``RLPs''),\7\ which are required to provide potential price
improvement for RMO Retail Orders in the form of non-displayed interest
(``Retail Price Improvement Orders'' or ``RPIs'') that is better than
the best protected bid (``PBB'') or the best protected offer (``PBO'')
(together, the ``PBBO'').\8\ ETP Holders other than RLPs are also
permitted, but not required, to submit RPIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``RMO'' is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(2) as an ETP Holder that
is approved by the Exchange to submit Retail Orders.
    \6\ ``Retail Order'' is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(3) as an agency
order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') Rule
5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to
the Exchange by an RMO, provided that no change is made to the terms
of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order
does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology. As described further below, designation of
an order as a Retail Order of an RMO for purposes of the Retail
Liquidity Program is separate from the designation of an order as a
Retail Order for purposes of existing pricing tiers in the Fee
Schedule. For that reason, the remainder of this proposal will refer
to Retail Orders of RMOs within the Retail Liquidity Program as
``RMO Retail Orders'' and to other Retail Orders outside of the
Retail Liquidity Program just as ``Retail Orders.''
    \7\ ``RLP'' is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(1) as an ETP Holder that
is approved by the Exchange to act as such and that is required to
submit Retail Price Improvement Orders in accordance with Rule 7.44.
    \8\ ``RPI'' is defined in Rule 7.44(a)(4) and consists of non-
displayed interest in NYSE Arca-listed securities and UTP Securities
that is priced better than the PBB or PBO, as such terms are defined
in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57), by at least $0.001 and that is
identified as such. The PBB is the best-priced protected bid and the
PBO is the best-priced protected offer. Generally, the PBB and PBO
and the national best bid (``NBB'') and national best offer
(``NBO''), respectively, will be the same. However, a market center
is not required to route to the NBB or NBO if that market center is
subject to an exception under Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1) or if
such NBB or NBO is otherwise not available for an automatic
execution. In such case, the PBB or PBO would be the best-priced
protected bid or offer to which a market center must route interest
pursuant to Regulation NMS Rule 611. See Rule 7.44(a)(4) for
additional details regarding RPIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An RMO submitting an RMO Retail Order could designate several ways
for the RMO Retail Order to interact with available contra-side
interest.\9\ Such contra-side interest could be against RPIs or against
other non-displayed liquidity and displayable odd lot interest priced
better than the PBBO (``other price-improving interest''), all of which
the Exchange would consider within the Retail Liquidity Program.\10\ If
the RMO Retail Order has not completely executed against such interest
within the Retail Liquidity Program, the RMO Retail Order could
alternatively execute outside of the Retail Liquidity Program against
contra-side interest on the NYSE Arca Book or on an away market after
routing, if so designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 7.44(k) for a description of the various RMO Retail
Order designations.
    \10\ While such other price-improving interest would not be
considered a new order type, executions of such other price-
improving interest against RMO Retail Orders would be considered
part of the Retail Liquidity Program for purposes of differentiating
between such interest and other available contra-side interest in
Exchange systems (e.g., interest on the NYSE Arca Book) or on an
away market after routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing the Retail Liquidity Program, the Exchange stated that
it would submit a separate proposal to amend its Fee Schedule in
connection with the Retail Liquidity Program.\11\ Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to adopt the following pricing: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 4 at 79525, n. 8.
    \12\ Participation in the Retail Liquidity Program is optional
and, accordingly, the pricing proposed herein would not apply to an
ETP Holder that does not choose to participate. Because the Retail
Liquidity Program has been approved to operate as a one-year pilot
program, the Exchange anticipates that it will periodically review
this pricing to seek to ensure that it contributes to the goal of
the Retail Liquidity Program, which is designed to attract
additional retail order flow to the Exchange for NYSE Arca-listed
securities and UTP Securities while also providing the potential for
price improvement to such order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     RPIs of RLPs would be free if executed against RMO Retail
Orders;
     RPIs of non-RLPs would be free if executed against RMO
Retail Orders; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange originally anticipated that RLPs could receive
special execution fees for executing RPIs against RMO Retail Orders,
as compared to non-RLPs, in exchange for satisfying certain
specified quoting obligations. See supra note 4 at 79525. These
quoting obligations would not apply until the first day of the third
consecutive calendar month after the ETP Holder begins operation as
an RLP. See Rule 7.44(f)(3); supra note 4 at 79527. Therefore, at
this time, the Exchange is proposing that the same pricing would
apply to RLPs and non-RLPs for executions of RPIs. The Exchange may
consider applying different pricing to RLP and non-RLP executions of
RPIs at a later date, but such change in pricing would be the
subject of a separate, subsequent proposal submitted by the Exchange
to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Other price-improving interest would receive applicable
Tiered or Basic Rates in the Fee Schedule if executed against RMO
Retail Orders; and
     RMO Retail Orders would receive a credit of $0.0005 per
share if executed against RPIs of RLPs and non-RLPs or against other
price-improving interest.
    The proposed credit of $0.0005 per share for RMO Retail Orders
would only apply to RMO Retail Orders if executed within the Retail
Liquidity Program (i.e.,

against RPIs of RLPs and non-RLPs or against other price-improving
interest). An RMO Retail Order that executes outside of the Retail
Liquidity Program would be considered just a Retail Order (not an
``RMO'' Retail Order) and receive pricing applicable to Tiered or Basic
Rates in the Fee Schedule.\14\ In this regard, the Fee Schedule
currently includes a Retail Order Tier and a Retail Order Cross-Asset
Tier (together, the ``Retail Order Tiers''), which are separate and
distinct from the Retail Liquidity Program and provide for
incrementally higher credits for ETP Holders that satisfy certain
qualification thresholds related to executions of Retail Orders.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As is currently the case, applicable charges would be based
on an ETP Holder's qualifying levels, and if an ETP Holder qualifies
for more than one tier in the Fee Schedule, the Exchange would apply
the most favorable rate available under such tiers.
    \15\ The Retail Order Tier provides for a credit of $0.0033 per
share of Retail Orders that provide liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book
for an ETP Holder that executes an average daily volume (``ADV'') of
Retail Orders during the month that is 0.20% or more of U.S.
consolidated ADV (``CADV''). The Retail Order Cross-Asset Tier
provides for a credit of $0.0034 per share of Retail Orders that
provide liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book for an ETP Holder that
executes an ADV of Retail Orders during the month that is 0.30% or
more of U.S. CADV and that is affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options
Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of
electronic posted Customer executions in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE
Arca Options (excluding mini options) of at least 0.50% of total
Customer equity and exchange-traded fund option ADV as reported by
The Options Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Designation of an order as a Retail Order for purposes of the
Retail Order Tiers is separate from the designation of an order as an
RMO Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity Program, despite
the characteristics of Retail Orders and RMO Retail Orders being
identical (i.e., they must all satisfy the definition of Retail Order
in Rule 7.44(a)(3)).\16\ Executions of RMO Retail Orders against RPIs
or against other price-improving interest within the Retail Liquidity
Program would count toward the qualification thresholds of the Retail
Order Tiers, but would not be eligible for the corresponding credits
available under the Retail Order Tiers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ An ETP Holder may designate an order as a Retail Order for
purposes of the Retail Order Tiers either (1) by designating certain
order entry ports at the Exchange as ``Retail Order Ports'' and
attesting, in a form and/or manner prescribed by the Exchange, that
all orders submitted to the Exchange via such Retail Order Ports are
Retail Orders; or (2) by means of a specific tag in the order entry
message. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68322
(November 29, 2012), 77 FR 72425 (December 5, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-
2012-129). The Exchange proposes non-substantive changes to (1)
replace the description of Retail Order in the Fee Schedule with
cross-references to Rule 7.44(a)(3), and (2) change a reference in
the Retail Order Cross-Asset Tier description from CADV to ADV.
    \17\ The credits under the Retail Order Tiers apply only to
orders that provide liquidity. An RMO Retail Order that executes
against an RPI or other price-improving interest within the Retail
Liquidity Program would always be considered to remove liquidity
(e.g., the RPI or other price-improving interest would provide
liquidity and the RMO Retail Order would remove liquidity). In
contrast, Retail Orders outside of the Retail Liquidity Program
could either provide or remove liquidity, depending on the
circumstances. As described in note 14 above, the Retail Order Tier
credits apply only to executions of Retails Orders that provide
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ETP Holder would remain able to designate an order as a Retail
Order for purposes of the Retail Order Tiers without designating the
order as an RMO Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity
Program. The result would be that the Retail Order would not be
eligible to execute against RPIs or receive the $0.0005 credit proposed
herein. An ETP Holder could also designate an order as an RMO Retail
Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity Program and as a Retail
Order for purposes of the Retail Order Tiers, in which case the
Exchange would consider the order to be an RMO Retail Order within the
Retail Liquidity Program for any executions against RPIs or other
price-improving interest and then just a Retail Order for purposes of
the Retail Order Tiers for any executions outside of the Retail
Liquidity Program against liquidity on the NYSE Arca Book.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ While unlikely, an ETP Holder could also designate an order
as an RMO Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity Program
but not as a Retail Order for purposes of the Retail Order Tiers.
The result would be that executions of the RMO Retail Order against
RPIs or other price-improving interest within the Retail Liquidity
Program would count toward the qualification thresholds of the
Retail Order Tiers. However, any subsequent executions of the order
against the NYSE Arca Book would not be considered Retail Order
executions and would therefore neither count toward the
qualification thresholds of the Retail Order Tiers nor be eligible
for the Retail Order Tier credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend footnote 10 in the Fee Schedule,
which relates to Market Maker fees and credits, to eliminate the
restriction that credits will not be applied to open orders (e.g.,
``Good Till Cancelled'' or ``GTC'' Orders) executed after the trading
date on which they were entered. The Exchange is eliminating the
restriction to encourage more orders to be submitted and enhance
liquidity on the Exchange.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange recently made a similar change to non-Market
Maker pricing. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71214
(December 31, 2013), 79 FR 873 (January 7, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-
146).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders
would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of the orders of
individual investors are executed over-the-counter.\22\ While the
Exchange believes that markets and price discovery optimally function
through the interactions of diverse flow types, it also believes that
growth in internalization has required differentiation of retail order
flow from other order flow types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (``Concept Release'') (noting that dark pools and
internalizing broker-dealers executed approximately 25.4% of share
volume in September 2009). See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening
Our Equity Market Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New
York, Sept. 7, 2010) (available on the Commission's Web site). In
her speech, Chairman Schapiro noted that nearly 30 percent of volume
in U.S.-listed equities was executed in venues that do not display
their liquidity or make it generally available to the public and the
percentage was increasing nearly every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is
reasonable because it would establish pricing designed to increase
competition among execution venues, encourage additional liquidity and
offer the potential for price improvement to retail investors. The
Exchange believes that the $0.0005 credit proposed for RMO Retail Order
executions against RPIs or other price-improving interest is reasonable
because it would create a financial incentive to bring additional
retail order flow to a public market. This rate is also reasonable
because it is the same rate that applies to RMO Retail Orders under the
NYSE Retail Liquidity Program.\23\ The Exchange also believes that not

charging RLPs and non-RLPs for their executions of RPIs against RMO
Retail Orders is reasonable because it could contribute to robust
amounts of price-improved, RPI liquidity being available for
interaction with the RMO Retail Orders and could therefore result in
greater price improvement for RMO Retail Orders. The Exchange also
believes that applying Tiered or Basic rates to executions of other
price-improving interest against RMO Retail Orders is reasonable
because such other price-improving interest would be included within
the Retail Liquidity Program for potential interaction with RMO Retail
Orders, but without being so designated by ETP Holders, and because
Tiered or Basic rates are the rates that would otherwise apply to such
other price-improving interest absent their interaction with RMO Retail
Orders. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to apply
Tiered or Basic rates to RMO Retail Orders that execute outside of the
Retail Liquidity Program as just Retail Orders (i.e., against the NYSE
Arca Book or routed away from the Exchange and executed on another
market) because these are the rates that would otherwise apply to such
orders absent their designation as an RMO Retail Order within the
Retail Liquidity Program (i.e., just as a Retail Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Rule 7.44 is based on NYSE Rule 107C, which governs NYSE's
``Retail Liquidity Program.'' The NYSE Retail Liquidity Program was
approved by the Commission and commenced operations on August 1,
2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3, 2012),
77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pricing proposed herein is equitable and, like the Retail
Liquidity Program itself, is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination, but instead to promote a competitive process around
retail executions such that retail investors would receive better
prices than they currently do through bilateral internalization
arrangements. The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory for orders designated as RMO Retail Orders
within the Retail Liquidity Program to count toward determining
qualifications for the Retail Order Tiers because the characteristics
of RMO Retail Orders and other Retail Orders are the same. This is also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these existing
pricing tiers would remain available to all ETP Holders, including
those ETP Holders that choose to designate an order as an RMO Retail
Order for purposes of the Retail Liquidity Program and as a Retail
Order for purposes of the Retail Order Tiers.
    The proposed pricing could result in an RPI receiving a rate (i.e.,
free) that is inferior to the rate received by other price-improving
interest (e.g., a $0.0015 per share credit under Basic Rates for a Mid-
Point Passive Liquidity Order that provides liquidity to the NYSE Arca
Book), even when both execute against an RMO Retail Order. The Exchange
believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
RPIs would only execute against RMO Retail Orders, whereas other price-
improving interest could execute against RMO Retail Orders or other
marketable interest, including non-retail liquidity.\24\ In this
regard, and as previously recognized by the Commission, ``markets
generally distinguish between individual retail investors, whose orders
are considered desirable by liquidity providers because such retail
investors are presumed on average to be less informed about short-term
price movements, and professional traders, whose orders are presumed on
average to be more informed.'' \25\ The Exchange has sought to balance
this view in setting the pricing of RPIs compared to other price-
improving interest, recognizing that the ability to limit interaction
only to RMO Retail Orders could be a potential benefit applicable only
to RPIs. This is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the use of RPIs by RLPs and non-RLPs is voluntary. ETP Holders that
perceive that the potential advantages of interacting with RMO Retail
Orders outweigh the potential costs (i.e., providing price improvement
and potential inferior pricing as compared to other price-improving
interest) may choose to utilize RPIs, but those that do not are free to
forgo involvement in the Retail Liquidity Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This is also similar to the manner in which the NASDAQ
Stock Market, LLC (``NASDAQ'') applies pricing for its ``Retail
Price Improvement Program.'' See NASDAQ Rule 7018(g).
    \25\ See SR-NYSE-2011-55, supra note 23 at 40679-80 (citing the
Concept Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that eliminating the restriction on open
orders in footnote 10 in the Fee Schedule and making credits available
to open orders that execute after the day that they are entered is
reasonable because it may encourage more open orders to be submitted,
which may enhance liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
the proposed change to footnote 10 in the Fee Schedule is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because all ETP Holders would have the
opportunity to earn credits for open orders that do not execute on the
day entered.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    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,\26\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not 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
rule change would increase competition among execution venues,
encourage additional liquidity, and offer the potential for price
improvement to retail investors. In this regard, the Exchange believes
that the transparency and competitiveness of operating a program such
as the Retail Liquidity Program on an exchange market, and the pricing
related thereto, would encourage competition and result in better
prices for retail investors. The Exchange believes that the proposed
change to footnote 10 in the Fee Schedule would not impose a burden on
competition but rather will create an incentive to submit open orders
to the Exchange, thereby promoting competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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) \27\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \28\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 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) \29\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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-2014-22 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-2014-22. 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 Section, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-22 and should be submitted on or before
April 9, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05988 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47506-47509]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19093]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72784; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Membership Fees

August 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 1, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Section VI
entitled ``Membership Fees'' to amend Permit Fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Permit Fees in Section
VI of the Pricing Schedule in order that the Exchange can allocate
costs to various options market participants which are incurred by the
Exchange.
    Today, the Exchange assesses members and member organizations
transacting business on the Exchange a monthly Permit Fee of $2,150.
The Exchange assesses members and member organizations not transacting
business on the Exchange a monthly Permit Fee of $7,500. PSX only
members \3\ and member organizations are not assessed a Permit Fee.\4\
Today, options members or member organizations pay an additional Permit

Fee for each sponsored options participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PSX only members are not engaged in an options business at
Phlx in a particular month.
    \4\ Today, applicants that apply for membership solely to
participate in the NASDAQ OMX PSX equities market are not assessed a
Permit Fee, Application Fee, Initiation Fee, or Account Fee. Should
such approved member or member organization subsequently elect to
engage in business on Phlx XL II, the Exchange's options platform,
the monthly Permit Fee, Initiation Fee and Account Fee will apply.
See note 14 in the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the current Permit Fees for
members and member organizations transacting and not transacting a
business and instead assess options Permit Fees by market participant.
The Exchange proposes to assess a monthly Permit Fee of $2,150 to Floor
Brokers,\5\ Specialists \6\ and Market Makers,\7\ effectively assessing
these market participants the same rate of $2,150 a month for a permit.
All other market participants (Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers,
collectively ``Other Market Participants'') will be assessed a Permit
Fee of $4,000 in a given month, unless the member or member
organization or member organizations under Common Ownership,\8\
executes at least 100 options in a Phlx house account that is assigned
to one of the member organizations in a given month, in which case the
Permit Fee will be $2,150 for that month. Option members and member
organizations will continue to pay an additional Permit Fee for each
sponsored options participant, which fee will be the Permit Fee that is
assessed to the member or member organization sponsoring the options
participant, either $2,150 or $4,000.\9\ The Exchange believes that 100
options in a given month is a reasonable level given the volume of
options transacted on Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Floor Broker is defined in Phlx Rule 1060 as ``[a]n
individual who is registered with the Exchange for the purpose,
while on the Options Floor, of accepting and executing options
orders received from members and member organizations.''
    \6\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \7\ A ``market maker'' includes Registered Options Traders (Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \8\ The term ``Common Ownership'' shall mean members or member
organizations under 75% common ownership or control. See Preface to
Exchange's Pricing Schedule.
    \9\ The Exchange is amending note 16 in the Pricing Schedule to
add clarity to the pricing for sponsored participants. See Exchange
Rule 1094 titled Sponsored Participants. A Sponsored Participant may
obtain authorized access to the Exchange only if such access is
authorized in advance by one or more Sponsoring Member
Organizations. Sponsored Participants must enter into and maintain
participant agreements with one or more Sponsoring Member
Organizations establishing a proper relationship(s) and account(s)
through which the Sponsored Participant may trade on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Permit Fees for PSX only members and member organizations would be
$4,000 unless the member or member organization averages at least 1,000
shares executed per day in a given month, in which case the Permit Fee
will be $0.00 in a given month. This volume will be calculated by
averaging the shares over a one month period. The Exchange believes
1,000 shares per day in a given month is a reasonable level given the
lower volume of business transacted on PSX as compared to other mature
equities markets such as The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate various notes in the
Pricing Schedule. The Exchange proposes to eliminate note 15 in the
Pricing Schedule which states that, ``[a] member or member organization
will be assessed the $2,150 monthly Permit Fee if that member or member
organization: (1) Transacts its option orders in its assigned Phlx
house account in a particular month; or (2) is a clearing member of The
Options Clearing Corporation or a Floor Broker; or (3) for those member
organizations which are under Common Ownership, transacts at least one
options trade in a Phlx house account that is assigned to one of the
member organizations under Common Ownership.'' This note, which
describes the qualifications for transacting business on Phlx, is
therefore no longer necessary. The Exchange is also eliminating note 17
in the Pricing Schedule which states that, ``a member or member
organization will be assessed a $7,500 monthly fee if that member is
(i) not a PSX Only Participant; or (ii) not engaged in an options
business at Phlx in a particular month.'' This note is no longer
necessary as this fee would be eliminated. The Exchange is amending
note 14 in the Pricing Schedule to remove references to the Permit Fee
as the Exchange proposes to assess certain PSX only members a Permit
Fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act
\11\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which Phlx operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend options Permit Fees to assess the
fee by market participant is reasonable because the Exchange is seeking
to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange. The Exchange
believes it is reasonable to assess different market participants
different Permit Fees because each market participant has a different
business model and, as a result, pays various other different fees to
the Exchange to maintain their business. Certain market participants
such as Floor Brokers, Specialists and Market Makers pay other types of
fees. For example, a Floor Broker requires space on the Exchange's
trading floor, and infrastructure to support floor trading.\12\ A
Specialist and Market Maker similarly incur costs for certain data
feeds, remote specialist fees, RSQT Fees and SQF Port Fees amongst
other charges.\13\ Taking into account the overall costs incurred by
Floor Brokers, Specialists and Market Makers to simply access and
conduct their business on the Exchange, it is reasonable to assess
these market participants a Permit Fee of $2,150 per month as compared
to Other Market Participants. The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to assess Other Market Participants a higher Permit Fee of
$4,000 in a given month unless they transact a certain volume on the
Exchange because these market participants do not incur the higher
costs to conduct their business as do Floor Brokers, Specialists and
Market Makers. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to
provide Other Market Participants an opportunity to lower Permit Fees
from $4,000 to the effective rate they pay today of $2,150 if they
transact a certain volume on Phlx in a given month because the Exchange
believes this volume brings revenue to the Exchange, which in turn
benefits other market participants because they are able to interact
with that volume. The Exchange offers that the 100 options threshold in
a given month is an achievable hurdle for a majority of options
participants on Phlx today. A majority of Other Market Participants are
capable of meeting this threshold. Finally, assessing different Permit
Fee rates to different types of market participants is not novel.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Floor Brokers are subject to a Floor Facility Fee in
Section VII of the Pricing Schedule.
    \13\ See Section VI of the Pricing Schedule.
    \14\ The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE''), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') and
Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'') assess
different Trading Permit Fees to different market participants. See
CBOE's Fees Schedule, ISE's Fee Schedule and MIAX's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend options Permit Fees to assess the
fee by market participant is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
for the reasons which follow. The Exchange believes that continuing to
assess Floor Brokers,

Specialists and Market Participants effectively the same rate of $2,150
for a Permit Fee recognizes the overall total fee structure of these
market participants on Phlx. As mentioned herein, Floor Brokers,
Specialists and Market Makers incur fees which are not borne by other
market participants.\15\ The Exchange believes that the proposed fee
structure recognizes the costs that are incurred by these market
participants in determining the Permit Fee for Floor Brokers,
Specialists and Market Makers. The Exchange believes Floor Brokers,
Specialists and Market Makers serve an important function on the
Exchange and already pay a significant portion of the non-transaction
fees assessed by the Exchange today. Specialists and Market Makers
serve an important role on the Exchange with regard to order
interaction and they provide liquidity in the marketplace. Floor
Brokers are registered with the Exchange for the purpose, while on the
options floor, of accepting and executing options orders received from
members and member organizations.\16\ These market participants incur
greater costs as compared to Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers
because the type of business they conduct requires them to incur more
cost to access the Exchange as compared to other market participants.
Other Market Participants (Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers) do
not incur the same fees as Floor Brokers, Specialists and Market Makers
and therefore, in order to allocate fees, the Exchange proposes to
assess these market participants an increased fee of $4,000, unless
they are able to transact at least 100 options in a given month. The
Exchange believes that assessing Other Market Participants the higher
fee of $4,000 and offering the opportunity to lower the Permit Fee by
executing a certain amount of volume is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they do not pay higher costs and the Exchange
believes that transacting volume on Phlx brings liquidity to the
Exchange, which in turn benefits other market participants. The
Exchange believes that Other Market Participant members, member
organizations and those under Common Ownership that add liquidity to
the market place also bring revenue to the Exchange by incurring
transaction fees. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to continue to assess effectively the same
Permit Fee as today of $2,150 to these Other Market Participants,
equivalent to Floor Brokers, Specialists and Market Makers, in any
given month in which they achieve the requisite volume because of the
liquidity and revenue they bring to Phlx. The opportunity to lower
Permit Fees affords Other Market Participants the opportunity to lower
their fees by offering a means to benefit the Exchange by bringing
liquidity to the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Floor Brokers require space on the Exchange's trading
floor, and infrastructure to support floor trading. Floor Brokers
are subject to a Floor Facility Fee in Section VII of the Pricing
Schedule. Specialists and Market Makers similarly incur costs for
certain data feeds, remote specialist fees, RSQT Fees and SQF Port
Fees amongst other charges. See Section VI of the Pricing Schedule.
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 1060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that continuing to assess PSX only members no
Permit Fee provided they transact an average of at least 1,000 shares
executed per day in a given month is reasonable because the Exchange
seeks to continue to attract market participants to the PSX market by
assessing no fee. The Exchange believes 1,000 shares per day is a
reasonable level given the volume of transactions which take place on
PSX as compared to mature equities markets.\17\ The Exchange has waived
the Permit Fee \18\ for several years and desires to continue to
incentivize PSX only members provided these members and member
organizations transact a certain volume on PSX in a given month. The
Exchange's proposal to assess a $4,000 fee to PSX only members that do
not transact the requisite volume in a given month is reasonable
because the Exchange desires to distribute costs to operate the
Exchange among its options and equities market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange offers that today, the majority of PSX members
transacting an equities business meet the threshold.
    \18\ Today, applicants that apply for membership solely to
participate in the NASDAQ OMX PSX equities market are not assessed a
Permit Fee, Application Fee, Initiation Fee, or Account Fee. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61863 (April 7, 2010), 75 FR
20021 (April 16, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that continuing to assess PSX only members no
Permit Fee provided they transact an average of at least 1,000 shares
executed per day in a given month is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because PSX is a growing market and not as robust as the
options market on Phlx. PSX only members and member organizations that
transact the requisite volume on PSX bring liquidity to the Exchange,
which in turn benefits other market participants. The Exchange believes
that assessing PSX only members that do not transact the requisite
volume of business in a given month, a $4,000 monthly Permit Fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this fee properly
allocates costs to PSX only members and member organizations not
conducting a business on PSX, similar to options members and member
organizations.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Pricing Schedule to remove
certain notes (15 and 17) which are irrelevant and amend note 14 is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange believes that these amendments will clarify the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is maintaining
options Permit Fees at the same rate for Floor Brokers, Specialists and
Market Makers because these participants pay other fees to the Exchange
which are not incurred by Other Market Participants and therefore their
overall costs is higher to transact business on Phlx. In addition,
Other Market Participants are afforded an opportunity to lower Permit
Fees by transacting business on Phlx. Phlx options members and member
organizations that do not transact the requisite volume of business on
Phlx to achieve the lower Permit Fee of $2,150 will be assessed a
higher Permit Fee of $4,000. Some of these options members and member
organizations are currently being assessed the $7,500 Permit Fee today
for transacting no business on Phlx, so the fee will be lower in those
cases. For options members and member organizations today that transact
some volume, but not the requisite volume specified for the lower fee,
the Permit Fee will increase. The Exchange believes that this fee
differential ($2,150 versus $4,000) does not create an undue burden on
competition because: (i) The requisite volume is not unreasonable given
the volume of contracts traded in a day on Phlx; (ii) the Exchange
believes that a majority of options members are capable of achieving
the requisite volume; and (iii) those options members and member
organizations that trade the requisite volume bring revenue to the
Exchange, which in turn benefits other market participants because they
are able to interact with that volume.
    The Exchange believes that providing PSX only members the
opportunity to transact a certain amount of volume to be assessed no
Permit Fee and assessing other PSX members the same $4,000 monthly
Permit Fee as Other Market

Participants conducting an options business on Phlx because they do not
transact the requisite volume of business does not create an undue
burden on competition because the pricing is being allocated evenly
among all options and equity members and member organizations that do
not transact a certain level of specified volume on Phlx. As far as not
assessing PSX only members and member organizations that transact the
requisite volume on PSX in a given month a Permit Fee, the Exchange
believes this does not create an unfair burden on competition because
the Exchange seeks to encourage market participants to connect to PSX,
a relatively new market, to encourage order flow and grow this market.
New markets typically offer market participants incentives, such as
reduced fees, to attract order flow.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are described in the above proposal are
influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain
competitive with fees charged by other venues and therefore must
continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that
opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-45 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-Phlx-2014-45. 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-Phlx-2014-45 and should be
submitted on or before September 3, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19093 Filed 8-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


April 13, 2004 RE: Classification of 8 hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas Using Only 1 hour Ozone Design Values Note from: John Silvasi Note to: Tom Helms, Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group Attached is a table presenting the numbers of hypothetical nonattainment areas under original proposed classification option 2 compared to the classifications using only 1 hour ozone design values and Table 1 of section 181( a)( 1) of the Act. The table also presents the number of areas that are not projected to attain by their attainment dates. The data and projections are taken from the document, " Qualitative Assessment of Alternative Coverage and Classification Options. First Addendum to " Cost, Emission Reduction, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Rule Establishing the Implementation Framework for the 8 hour, 0.08ppm Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard." Prepared by Innovative Strategies and Economics Group, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. April 8, 2004." 2 4/ 12/ 04 CLASSIFICATION OPTIONS COUNTS OF HYPOTHETICAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS ( 2000 2002 data)

Subpart 2 Subpart 1*

ROW Extreme Severe 17 Severe 15 Serious Moderate Marginal Total A Proposed Option 2 # areas by class 0 1 0 4 21 11 64 101 # not attain by attain date* 3 11 2 15 31 B Classification of 8 hr NA areas using only 1 hr DV's and original table 1 from section 181 # areas by class 0 0 0 2 9 26 64 101 # not attain by attain date* 2 5 14 15 36 # not attain by next highest classification attain date 2 3 8 13 * 2007 assumed for subpart 1 areas ( although the max. attain date can be out to 2014)


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41877-41878]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16634]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0956; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWP-17]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Phoenix, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at the Phoenix VHF
Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VORTAC),
Phoenix, AZ, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
aircraft under control of Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC). This improves the safety and management of IFR operations
within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, September 18, 2014. The Director of
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action
under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Nugent, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace
at Phoenix, AZ (78 FR 78298). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from the National
Business Aviation Association in support of the recommended change.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of
FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at the Phoenix VORTAC
navigation aid, Phoenix, AZ, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control
of Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) by vectoring
aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. This action is
necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code.
Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses 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 establishes
controlled airspace at the Phoenix VORTAC navigation aid, Phoenix, AZ.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 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 part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E6 Phoenix, AZ [New]

Phoenix VORTAC, AZ
    (Lat. 33[deg]25'59'' N., long. 111[deg]58'13'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by lat. 34[deg]01'00'' N., long.
114[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]33'12'' N., long. 111[deg]51'21''
W.; to lat. 33[deg]29'30'' N., long. 110[deg]45'45'' W.; to lat.
33[deg]52'30'' N., long. 108[deg]45'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]50'00''
N., long. 108[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]35'00'' N., long.
107[deg]36'00'' W.; to lat. 33[deg]35'00'' N., long. 107[deg]28'00''
W.; to lat. 32[deg]25'00'' N., long. 108[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat.
32[deg]25'00'' N., long. 108[deg]12'00'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]20'00''
N., long. 108[deg]12'00'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]20'00'' N., long.
111[deg]05'00'' W.; to lat. 32[deg]06'00'' N., long. 113[deg]30'30''
W.; to lat. 32[deg]44'15'' N., long. 113[deg]41'05'' W.; to lat.
32[deg]41'00'' N., long. 114[deg]00'00'' W., thence to the point of
beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 7, 2014.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-16634 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 32211-32212]
[DOCID:fr07jy09-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60192; File No. SR-ISE-2009-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fee Changes

June 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ notice is hereby given that on June 26, 2009, International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by ISE. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://
www.ise.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, ISE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
(A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees. First, ISE currently waives most customer transaction
fees, with such waiver scheduled to expire on June 30, 2009.\2\ Zero
customer transaction fees in options are part of the competitive
pricing landscape. Since its inception, ISE has not charged fees for
customer transactions for most products by way of a fee waiver. Despite
having an effective rate of $0.00 per contract for customer
transactions in these products, ISE's fee schedule reflects a customer
fee of $0.05 with a waiver to offset the fee. Instead of extending the
waiver on a year-to-year basis, the Exchange proposes to remove the fee
waiver language from its fee schedule and replace the $0.05 fee with
$0.00 for First Market options, effective July 1, 2009. ISE believes
this change will make its customer fees easier for market participants
to understand. The Exchange will continue to charge $0.05 per contract
for customer transactions in Second Market options and proposes to
create a new line item to reflect this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58139 (July 10,
2008), 73 FR 41142 (July 17, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange currently has a fee cap for large-size foreign
currency (``FX'') options orders. This fee discount applies for orders
of 5,000 contracts or more and waives fees on incremental

volume above 5,000 contracts. Contracts at or under the threshold are
charged the constituent's prescribed execution fee. This waiver is for
both Public Customer orders and Firm Proprietary orders. ISE adopted
this fee incentive, on a pilot basis, to encourage members to execute
large-sized FX options orders on the Exchange. The current pilot
program is set to expire on June 30, 2009.\3\ The Exchange now proposes
to extend this fee waiver through June 30, 2010 in a continuing effort
to attract more activity in its FX options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. In particular, the Exchange believes calculating the
fee on a per symbol basis is necessary to allow the Exchange to target
cancellations that do not have a valid justification.

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 \5\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2009-42 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-ISE-2009-42. 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 Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of ISE. 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-ISE-2009-42
and should be submitted on or before July 28, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15903 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 20963]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08348]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation
Maintenance Technical Schools

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 information collected is needed to determine applicant
eligibility and compliance for certification of Civil Aviation
mechanics and operation of aviation mechanic schools.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 13, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0040.
    Title: Aviation Maintenance Technical Schools.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8310-6.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The collection of information is necessary to ensure
that Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools meet the minimum
requirements for procedures and curriculum set forth by the FAA in FAR
Part 147. Applicants submit FAA Form 8310-6, Aviation Maintenance
Technician School certificate and Ratings Application, to the
appropriate FAA district office for review. If the application
(including supporting documentation) is satisfactory, an on-site
inspection is conducted. When all FAR Part 147 requirements have been
met, an aviation maintenance technician school certificate with
appropriate ratings is issued.
    Respondents: Approximately 174 representatives of aviation
maintenance technician schools.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 3.17 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 66,134 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 8, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-08348 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45746-45747]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC19-128-000.
    Applicants: Wildorado Wind, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/23/19.
    Accession Number: 20190823-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/13/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-172-000.
    Applicants: TWE Bowman Solar Project, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of TWE Bowman Solar Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/23/19.
    Accession Number: 20190823-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/13/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-173-000.
    Applicants: MD Solar 2, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 8/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190826-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-174-000.
    Applicants: FL Solar 4, LLC.
    Description: FL Solar 4 Submits Notice of Self-Certification of
Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 8/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190826-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-175-000.
    Applicants: AZ Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: AZ Solar 1, LLC Submits Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 8/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190826-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-176-000.
    Applicants: GA Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: AZ Solar 1, LLC Submits Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 8/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190826-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2065-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2019-08-26_SA 2026 Ameren-Hannibal
Second Substitute 2nd Rev WDS to be effective 8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190826-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2275-001.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Concurrence with Ottumwa GS Unit 1
F&O Agt--Amendment to ER19-2275 to be effective 6/27/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190826-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2680-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: E&P Agreement for EDPR CA
Solar Park-Sandrini Sol 2 to be effective 8/27/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190826-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2681-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment AE Revisions to
Modify Market Timelines to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 8/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190826-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2682-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ICSA, SA No. 5454;
Queue No. AB2-093 to be effective 7/26/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190826-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR19-8-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Request of North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Acceptance of its 2020 Business Plan and Budget and the
2020 Business Plans and Budgets of Regional Entities and for Approval
of Proposed Assessments to Fund Budgets.
    Filed Date: 8/23/19.
    Accession Number: 20190823-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 26, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18835 Filed 8-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56174-56175]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0483; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-13]

Proposed Establishment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Camp
Guernsey, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D airspace and Class E
airspace at Camp Guernsey Airport, Camp Guernsey, WY. The establishment
of an air traffic control tower has made this action necessary for the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft within
this airspace.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0483; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-13, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2012-0483 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-13) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2012-0483 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-13''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/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 Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western
Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class D airspace and Class
E airspace extending upward from the surface at Camp Guernsey Airport,
Camp Guernsey, WY. The establishment of an air traffic control tower
has made this action necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is
to provide controlled airspace for IFR operations at Camp Guernsey
Airport, Camp Guernsey, WY.
    Class D airspace and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated
August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (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 this proposed 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.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for 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 the
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 establish controlled airspace at Camp Guernsey Airport,
Camp Guernsey, WY

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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.    71.1 [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ANM WY D Camp Guernsey Airport, WY [New]

Camp Guernsey Airport, WY
    (Lat. 42[deg]15'35'' N., long. 104[deg]43'42'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
6,900 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Camp Guernsey Airport, and
within 1.5 miles each side of the 340[deg] bearing of the airport,
extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles north of the airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

ANM WY E2 Camp Guernsey Airport, WY [New]

Camp Guernsey Airport, WY
    (Lat. 42[deg]15'35'' N., long. 104[deg]43'42'' W.)

    Within a 5-mile radius of Camp Guernsey Airport, and within 1.5
miles each side of the 340[deg] bearing of the airport, extending
from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles north of the airport. This Class
E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 31, 2012.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-22464 Filed 9-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P