[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33011-33012]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13926]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64577; File No. SR-BX-2011-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ OMX BX Inc. LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding
the Correction of an Inadvertent Error in Exchange Rule 7019(c)

 June 1, 2011.
    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 May 20, 2011, The NASDAQ BX OMX, Inc. LLC (``BX'' or ``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 BX. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    BX proposes to make a correction to the definition of ``Direct
Access'' in Exchange Rule 7019(c). The Exchange proposes to implement
the proposed rule change immediately.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, BX 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. BX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make a correction to Exchange Rule 7019(c)
of its Market Data Distributor Fees rule to correct an inadvertent
error in the definition of ``Direct Access'' contained in a recent
filing (``previous filing'').\3\ The previous filing intended to amend
the fee schedule to correct an anomaly that effectively exempted
certain customers residing within the Exchange's co-location facility
from paying a monthly fee for direct access to Exchange data, while
customers that received data from an extranet and resided outside the
co-location facility were assessed the fee. The previous filing also
deleted outdated verbiage in the fee schedule in order to eliminate
confusion regarding application of the fees. However, the rule language
contained an inadvertent error that effectively still exempts certain
co-located customers receiving Exchange data feeds from paying a direct
access fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63442 (December 6,
2010), 75 FR 77029, (December 10, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-081).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition should be corrected to make clear that the
definition of ``Direct

Access'' is also applicable to a telecommunications interface with the
Exchange for receiving Exchange data feeds (and not Exchange data)
within the Exchange co-location facility as well. The Exchange is
making this change due to an inadvertent clerical error in the previous
filing and is making no other changes to Exchange Rule 7019.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular. The proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is
to correct an inadvertent error in the definition of ``Direct Access''
in Exchange Rule 7019(d) of its Market Data Distributor Fees rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3)
thereunder,\7\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as one that is
concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that its proposal
should become immediately effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b 4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-BX-2011-028 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-BX-2011-028. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference 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 such 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-BX-2011-028, and should be
submitted on or before June 28, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13926 Filed 6-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From: "Cromwell, Ted T."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Cronmiller, Rae E."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 01/11/2013 05:58 AM
Subject: RE: FW:

Hi Melanie,
Given the member feedback to date on how they utilize/dispatch RICE, I’d expect we have both G&Ts as well as
distribution coops that would be affected. While the vast majority of the RICE is owned by the customers and not
our G&T or distribution coops, our guys call them up, as noted below, and so they would record that action.

Ballpark – I’d say at least 70% of our G&Ts (we have 65) and at least 50-60% of our distribution coops (we have over
800) would be potentially affected by reporting requirements.

I don’t know that we’d have more specifics than that, but let me know if you have additional questions and we’ll see
what we can find out.
Thanks
Ted

P.S. – I’m working remotely today, so the best way to reach me is email or via the cell number below.

T. Ted Cromwell
Senior Principal, Environmental Policy
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(703) 907-5706 (office)
(703) 795-0719 (mobile)

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:18 PM
To: Cronmiller, Rae E.; Cromwell, Ted T.
Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: FW:

Hi Rae and Ted,
We're responding to comments from OMB asking for estimates of the burden of a reporting
requirement, which we had previously discussed the possibility of for the RICE rule, see email
below. Do you have a ballpark number of the number of utilities that would be affected by
such a requirement? We have a call with OMB at 1 p.m. tomorrow so any information you
could provide before then would be very helpful. Thanks.

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC 27711
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

-----"Cronmiller, Rae E."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----
To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph
Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
From: "Cronmiller, Rae E."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: 10/31/2012 03:44PM
Cc: "Cromwell, Ted T."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: FW:

Greetings. NRECA has conferred with our membership regarding the issues raised in connection with the RICE June
7, 2012 proposal. This e-mail and attachment represents our summary recommendations and answers to several
questions posed by EPA over the several months.

Regarding the following questions. Would your members be willing to file electronically with EPA on annual basis,
hours and time durations of RICE dispatch for emergency demand response to begin in several years? Yes. We have
to note that the utility knows when and why their dispatch of emergency RICE was ordered. However the utility has
no way of knowing if the owner ran the unit for more or less than the time requested, although the total annual
operated hours of each RICE would be recorded at the RICE site by a non resettable hours meter as required by the
existing regulations. We also note that if the owner “takes the unit offline” without being dispatched by the utility,
we would not know those hours of operation, but again, they would be recorded by the no resettable hours meter.

Would you members be willing to use ultra low sulfur diesel fuel for RICE dispatched for emergency purposes? Yes,
for emergency dispatch to maintain reliability at the sub-bulk power (non RTO/ ISO) level. We assume your question
was directed at our efforts to broaden RICE emergency use at the local level to maintain local reliability. We have no
position on whether those RICE responding to EE2 regional power alerts (capacity markets) for example would
agree to an ultra low sulfur fuel mandate.

The attachment provides text recommendations addressing the following areas: 1. Suggested Language in red
identifying entity responsibility for ordering RICE dispatch following protocols necessary for maintaining local
reliability as a follow up to Melanie’s question late last week. This language is an amendment to what was submitted
earlier as 63.6640(f)(ii)(b) in effort to further define appropriate RICE emergency dispatch at the local level. We
have included the background materials submitted earlier as well.

2. For economic demand response beyond the 2017 sunset, we suggested in an earlier meeting with EPA to allow
RICE operation beyond the sunset if the RICE was equipped with crankcase ventilation (CCV) and utilized ultra low
sulfur diesel fuel along with the requirements included in Table 2d for emergency RICE (this could be defined as
GACT). We have attached language pursuant to this earlier suggestion.

3. For annual hours of operation, as we noted in our earlier written comments, the penalties for exceeding the
annual cap are severe and not justified for accidental noncompliance. We believe defining compliance on a three
your annual rolling average is equitably justified here. We have included language to allow compliance with both
the 100 hour cap and the 50 hour economic demand response cap based on the three year rolling average
concept. After all whether emergency or economic demand response, all RICE use here is unplanned and cannot be
predicted months or even days ahead of time.

Lastly we do appreciate all your efforts to understand our concerns that reliable and affordable and electric power
be maintained throughout rural America. The last few days here in Washington D.C. area and the northeast corridor
are vivid reminders of how important RICE generation can be in times of distress. Our members pride themselves in
providing excellent power quality and reliability even in rural and remote areas. We endeavor to assist them in this
RICE effort.

Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions.

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
original message.

[attachment "NRECA RICE recommendations.docx" removed by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US]

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27058-27062]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10832]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0206; FRL--9809-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Approval of Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Parish of Pointe Coupee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting direct final approval of a revision to the
Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning a maintenance plan
addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the parish of Pointe
Coupee. On February 28, 2007, the State of Louisiana submitted a SIP
revision containing a maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone standard for
Pointe Coupee Parish. This plan ensures the continued attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) through
the year 2014. On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone standard.
Today's action, however, is being taken to address requirements under
the 1997 ozone standard. Requirements for this area under the 2008
standard will be addressed in future actions. This maintenance plan
meets statutory and regulatory requirements, and is consistent with
EPA's guidance.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 8, 2013 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by June 10, 2013. If EPA
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.
    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-
0206, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2007-0206. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
    Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Public Records
Center, Room 127, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Belk or Ms. Sandra Rennie,
Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214) 665-2164 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Outline

I. Background
II. Analysis of the State's Submittal
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Under section 107 of the 1977 CAA, Louisiana's Pointe Coupee Parish
was designated as a nonattainment area because it did not meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 1-hour ozone (40 CFR
81.319). Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, Pointe Coupee Parish was
included as part of the Baton Rouge nonattainment area, and continued
to be

designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by operation of
law. Under these Amendments, the Baton Rouge area, which included
Pointe Coupee, was classified as a serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area, pursuant to sections 107(d) and 181(a) of the CAA Amendments (56
FR 56694).
    On December 20, 1995, Louisiana submitted a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) requesting that Pointe Coupee Parish be removed from the
Baton Rouge nonattainment area and be redesignated to attainment for
the 1-hour standard. As part of the submittal, the State provided the
required ozone monitoring data and a maintenance plan for the Parish to
ensure the area would remain in attainment for 1-hour ozone for a
period of 10 years. EPA approved Louisiana's request to redesignate
Pointe Coupee Parish to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and
the maintenance plan on January 6, 1997 (62 FR 648).
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858), and published the final Phase 1 rule
for implementation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951). Pointe Coupee
Parish was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 ozone
standard, effective June 15, 2004. The area is consequently required to
submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a) (1) of the CAA
and the Phase 1 rule. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance providing
information regarding how a state might fulfill the maintenance plan
obligation established by the Act and the Phase 1 rule (Memorandum from
Lydia N. Wegman to Air Division Directors, Maintenance Plan Guidance
Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of
Clean Air Act, May 20, 2005). This SIP revision satisfies the section
110(a) (1) CAA requirements for a plan that provides for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Pointe Coupee Parish 1997 8-hour ozone unclassifiable/
attainment area.
    On December 22, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion that vacated EPA's Phase
1 Implementation Rule for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard. (South Coast
Air Quality Management District. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006).
Petitions for rehearing were filed with the Court, and on June 8, 2007,
the Court modified the scope of the vacatur of the Phase 1 rule. See
489 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1065 (2008). The
Court vacated those portions of the Rule that provide for regulation of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu
of Subpart 2 and that allow backsliding with respect to new source
review, penalties, milestones, contingency plans, and motor vehicle
emission budgets. Consequently, the Court's modified ruling does not
alter any requirements under the Phase 1 implementation rule for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for maintenance plans.

II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    On February 28, 2007, the State of Louisiana submitted a SIP
revision containing a maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for
Pointe Coupee Parish. This February revision provides a 1997 ozone
NAAQS maintenance plan for the parish, as required by section 110(a)(1)
of the CAA and the provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule (see
40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)). The purpose of this plan is to ensure continued
attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pointe
Coupee Parish.
    In this action, EPA is approving the State's maintenance plan for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS for Pointe Coupee Parish because EPA finds that
the LDEQ submittal meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the
CAA, EPA's rule, and is consistent with EPA's guidance. As required,
this plan provides for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the area for 10 years from the effective date of the
area's designation as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and includes components illustrating how the Parish will
continue in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and contingency
measures. Each of the section 110(a) (1) plan components is discussed
below.
    (a) Attainment Inventory. The LDEQ developed comprehensive
inventories of VOC and NOX emissions from area, stationary,
and mobile sources using 2002 as the base year to demonstrate
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for Pointe Coupee Parish. The year
2002 is an appropriate year for the LDEQ to base attainment level
emissions because States may select any one of the three years on which
the 8-hour attainment designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS was based
(2001, 2002, and 2003). The State's submittal contains detailed
inventory data and summaries by source category. The 2002 base year
inventory is a good choice. Using the 2002 inventory as a base year
reflects one of the years used for calculating the air quality design
values on which the 8-hour ozone designation decisions were based. It
also is one of the years in the 2002-2004 period used to establish
baseline visibility levels for the regional haze program.
    A practical reason for selecting 2002 as the base year emission
inventory is that Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA and the Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) require States to
submit emissions inventories for all criteria pollutants and their
precursors every three years, on a schedule that includes the emissions
year 2002. The due date for the 2002 emissions inventory is established
in the rule as June 2004. In accordance with these requirements, the
State of Louisiana compiles a statewide EI for point sources on an
annual basis. For stationary point sources, for Pointe Coupee Parish,
the LDEQ provided estimates for each commercial or industrial operation
that emits 100 tons or more per year of VOC or NOX in
Appendix A of the maintenance plan. Stationary non-point source data
was provided by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., through the Central
Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) using the methodology in
``Consolidation of Emissions Inventories'', section C, page 26. On-road
mobile emissions of VOC and NOX were estimated using EPA's
MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions factor computer model. Non-road
mobile emissions data were derived from the ``Emission Inventory
Development For Mobile Sources and Agricultural Dust Sources for the
Central States'' produced by Sonoma Technology, Inc. for CENRAP in
October 2004 using EPA's NONROAD 2004 non-road mobile emissions
computer model. EPA finds that the LDEQ prepared the 2002 base year
emissions inventories for the Parish consistent with EPA's long-
established guidance memoranda.
    In projecting data for the attainment year 2014 inventory, LDEQ
used several methods to project data from the base year 2002 to the
years 2008, 2011, and 2014. These projected inventories were developed
using EPA-approved technologies and methodologies. Point source and
non-point source projections were derived from the Emissions Growth
Analysis System version 4.0 (EGAS 4.0). Non-road mobile projections
were derived from EGAS 4.0, as well as from the National Mobile
Inventory Model.
    The following tables provide VOC and NOX emissions data
for the 2002 base attainment year inventory, as well as projected VOC
and NOX emission inventory data for the years 2008, 2011,
and 2014. Please see the Technical Support Document (TSD) for
additional emissions inventory data including

projections by source category for the parish.

                      Pointe Coupee Parish VOC and NOX Emissions Inventory Baseline (2002)
                                     and Projections (2008, 2011, and 2014)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2002 tons per   2008 tons per   2011 tons per   2014 tons per
                    Emissions                           day             day             day             day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC.......................................            8.63            8.04            7.75            7.66
Total NOX.......................................           65.72           67.81           70.44           73.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the Table, total VOC emissions are projected to
decrease slightly, and total NOX emissions for Pointe Coupee
Parish are projected to increase slightly over the 10-year period of
the maintenance plan. While emission projections for VOC indicate a
downward trend through 2014, NOX emission projections
through 2014 show an increase of 7.55 tons per day, or approximately
11% (from 65.72 to 73.27 tpd). This projected increase is relatively
small considering that it occurs over a period of approximately twelve
years from the 2002 baseline. The slightly upward trend in
NOX emissions results primarily from projected increases in
emissions for the point source category, although there is also
projected to be a very small increase from the nonpoint source
category. Emissions of NOX from non-road sources are
projected to remain nearly the same, and emissions of NOX
from on-road mobile sources are projected to decrease. The EGAS system
for projecting emissions may overstate future emissions because the
system relies principally on economic growth for the projections.
Specifically, the future emissions from NOX point sources
can be overstated because the projections do not include reductions
from regulatory or permit controls. A review of emissions inventory
trends, now available through 2008, confirms that the emission
projections in the SIP were overstated. In fact rather than an 11%
increase in NOX, emissions have declined by almost 40% since
2002.
    Please see the TSD for more information on EPA's analysis and
review of the State's methodologies, modeling data and performance,
etc. for developing the base and attainment year inventories for the
area. As shown in the table and discussion above, the State projected
that the future year ozone precursor emissions will be less than or
similar to the 2002 base attainment year's emissions. The attainment
inventory submitted by the LDEQ for this area is consistent with the
criteria as discussed in the EPA Maintenance Plan Guidance memo dated
May 20, 2005, and in other guidance documents (please see the docket
for additional information). Considering emissions projections together
with reductions from measures not accounted for in the state's
projections, EPA finds that the future emissions levels in 2008, 2011
and 2014 are expected to be less than or similar to emissions levels in
2002.
    Ambient air monitoring data entered into the National Emission
Inventory database for 2005 and 2008 supports the above finding.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration. The primary purpose of a maintenance
plan is to demonstrate how an area will continue to remain in
compliance with the 1997 ozone standard for the 10 year period
following the effective date of designation as unclassifiable/
attainment. The end projection year is 10 years from the effective date
of the attainment designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which for
Pointe Coupee Parish was June 15, 2004. Therefore, this plan must
demonstrate how the area will remain in attainment through 2014. As
discussed in section (a) Attainment Inventory above, Louisiana has
identified the level of ozone-forming emissions in Pointe Coupee Parish
that was consistent with attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in 2002.
Louisiana projected VOC and NOX emissions for the years
2008, 2011, and 2014 in Pointe Coupee Parish and finds that the future
emissions levels in those years are projected to be similar to or below
the emissions levels in 2002. Please see the TSD for more information
on EPA's review and evaluation of the State's 2008, 2011, and 2014
projected emissions inventories.
    Louisiana relies on several air quality measures that will provide
for additional 8-hour ozone emissions reductions in Point Coupee
Parish. These measures include the following, among others:
    (1) implementation of EPA's National Rules for VOC Emission
Standards: for Automobile Refinish Coatings (63 FR 48806), for Consumer
Products (63 FR 48819), and Architectural Coatings (63 FR 48848), for
Consumer and Commercial Products Group II (Flexible Packaging Printing
Materials, Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing
Materials) (71 FR 58745), for Consumer and Commercial Products Group
III (Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and
Large Appliance Coatings) (72 FR 57215), and for Consumer and
Commercial Products Group IV (Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings,
Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings,
Fiberglass Boat and Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous
Industrial Adhesives) (73 FR 58481);
    (2) enacting of specific requirements from EPA's Tier 2 Motor
Vehicle Emission Standards (65 FR 6697), EPA's Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements
(66 FR 5001), as well as EPA's Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards
and Gasoline Sulfur Control requirements (65 FR 6697);
    (3) EPA's required control of emissions from Non-road Diesel
Engines and Fuels (69 FR 38958); and
    (4) EPA's Locomotive and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines rule
(73 FR 16435). The purpose of these control measures is to reduce
levels of 8-hour ozone precursors, including the area of Pointe Coupee
Parish, as well as to reduce transport to the Pointe Coupee Parish area
from other areas such as Baton Rouge.
    (c) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring. The State of Louisiana
committed in its maintenance plan to provide operation of an
appropriate ozone monitoring network and to work with EPA in compliance
with 40 CFR part 58 with regard to the continued adequacy of such a
network.
    The Point Coupee Parish monitoring site monitored attainment with
the 1997 ozone standard from 2002 through 2006. The 1997 ozone NAAQS is
0.08 parts per million based on the three-year average of the fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration measured at
each monitor within an area. The 1997 ozone standard is considered to
be attained at 84 parts per billion (ppb). In 2007 when the maintenance
plan was submitted by

LDEQ, the three most recent 8-hour ozone design values based on
certified data for the Pointe Coupee Parish site were 2003-2005. Table
1 shows the design values before and after 2005.

 Table 1--Pointe Coupee Parish Design Values in Parts Per Billion (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                             Design value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003...................................................              73
2004...................................................              76
2005...................................................              81
2006...................................................              84
2007...................................................              86
2008...................................................              83
2009...................................................              77
2010...................................................              75
2011...................................................              75
2012 (preliminary).....................................              77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 2007 prevented us
from approving this plan earlier. However, certified monitoring data
now clearly show that the Parish came back into attainment in 2008 and
continues to be in attainment of that standard. Further analysis of the
monitoring data revealed that a 4th high exceedance in 2006 was the
primary cause for the violation in 2007. Speciated PAMS monitoring data
from the adjacent Baton Rouge area showed a spike in stationary source
NOX in 2006 which is the likely cause of the exceedance in
Pointe Coupee during 2006. Transport of emissions from the Baton Rouge
area into Pointe Coupee Parish has been demonstrated in a number of
studies.
    In August and September 2005, the Baton Rouge metropolitan area
(which includes Pointe Coupee) absorbed an estimated 75,000 evacuees
from Hurricane Katrina. Upwards of 15,000 of those remained in Baton
Rouge through 2006. Increased demands on power generating facilities,
and Baton Rouge area refineries compensating for other area refining
facilities that were shut down or operating at reduced capacity are
likely sources of the stationary source NOX increase. For
these reasons, we are considering the 2007 violation an anomaly and
proposing approval of this maintenance plan. See the TSD for this
action for a more comprehensive discussion of this anomalous violation.
    (d) Contingency Plan. The section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans
include contingency provisions to correct promptly any violation of the
1997 ozone NAAQS that occurs. The contingency indicator for the Pointe
Coupee Parish maintenance plan is based upon monitoring data. The
triggering mechanism for activation of contingency measures is a
violation of the 1997 ozone standard.\1\ In this maintenance plan, if
contingency measures are triggered, LDEQ is committing to implement the
appropriate measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
24 months following the trigger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A violation is deemed to have occurred upon the date of
EPA's certification of the monitoring data. EPA certified the 2007
data in July 2008. The State's contingency measures plan provides
that if there is a violation, then the appropriate control measures
to bring Pointe Coupee back into attainment must be implemented no
later than 24 months, i.e., July 2010. In order to understand the
source of the 2007 ozone violation in the Parish, EPA reviewed the
conditions and found that the higher ozone days in Pointe Coupee
Parish are due to ozone concentrations or pre-cursors coming
primarily from outside of the Parish. Of the twelve days in which
there was an exceedance in 2005-2007, eleven show significant
influence coming from outside the parish. For ten of the days, the
trajectories show influence from the industrial area of Baton Rouge
(southeast of Pointe Coupee), and for one of the days the trajectory
goes through West and East Feliciana (northeast of Pointe Coupee)
The twelfth exceedance was not high enough to be included in the
design value calculation. In the docket, see the map entitled,
``Analysis of High Ozone Concentrations in Pointe Coupee Parish,
LA.'' Pointe Coupee's 2008 monitoring data had no exceedances, and
the design value for 2008 is below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA certified the 2008 data in January 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following contingency measures are identified for
implementation: (1) Lowering VOC RACT applicability thresholds for
Stage 1 gasoline controls, (2) NOX controls on major sources
(100 tpy and greater), (3) Emission offsets for permits (1.10 ratio for
VOC and NOX), and (4) Other measures deemed appropriate at
the time as a result of advances in control technologies. These
contingency measures and schedules for implementation satisfy EPA's
long-standing guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of
continued attainment. Continued attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
the area of Pointe Coupee Parish will depend, in part, on the air
quality measures discussed previously (see II. (b) above). In addition,
Louisiana commits to verify the 8-hour ozone status of the areas air
quality through appropriate ambient air quality monitoring, and to
quality assure air quality monitoring data according to federal
requirements.

III. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the Act, EPA grants direct final
approval of the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Pointe Coupee
Parish, which was submitted by LDEQ on February 28, 2007, which ensures
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the year
2014. We evaluated the State's submittal and determine that it meets
the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations,
and is consistent with EPA policy.
    EPA is publishing this Rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments
are received. This rule will be effective on July 8, 2013 without
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by June 10, 2013. If
we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
now. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 8, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 24, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. In Sec.  52.970, the second table in paragraph (e) entitled, ``EPA
APPROVED LOUISIANA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY
MEASURES'', is amended by adding one new entry to the end of the table
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *

                                      EPA-Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
       Name of SIP provision        Applicable geographic  submittal date/            EPA Approval date                         Explanation
                                    or nonattainment area  effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
1997 8-Hour Ozone Section 110       Pointe Coupee Parish,       2/28/2007  5/9/2013..............................  .....................................
 Maintenance Plan.                   LA.                                   [Insert FR page number where document
                                                                            begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.975 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.975  Redesignations and maintenance plans; ozone.

* * * * *
    (l) Approval. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) submitted a 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the
area of Pointe Coupee Parish on February 28, 2007. The area is
designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA determined this request for Pointe Coupee Parish was
complete on May 2, 2007. The maintenance plan meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and is consistent with EPA's
maintenance plan guidance document dated May 20, 2005. The EPA
therefore approved the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the
area of Pointe Coupee Parish on May 9, 2013.
[FR Doc. 2013-10832 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3799-3804]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01417]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82563; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List

January 22, 2018.
    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 January 8, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List for equity
transactions in stocks with a per share stock price of $1.00 or more to
(1) revise the Non-Tier Adding Credit; (2) modify the market at-the-
close (``MOC'') and limit at-the-close (``LOC'') tier and non-tier
rates and add a new Floor broker MOC fee; (3) modify the fee for
executions at the close (except MOC, LOC and Closing Offset (``CO'')
Orders), and Floor broker executions swept into the close, excluding
verbal interest above the first 750,000 average daily volume (``ADV'')
of aggregate executions at the close; (4) introduce a Tier 4 Adding
Credit; (5) introduce tiered trading license fees; and (6) make certain
non-substantive organizational and clarifying changes, including
grouping fees for all executions at the close together. The Exchange
proposes to implement these changes to its Price List effective January
8, 2018.\4\ The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Price List on
December 28, 2017 (SR-NYSE-2017-73). SR-NYSE-2017-73 was
subsequently withdrawn and replaced by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 its Price List to (1) revise the
Non-Tier Adding Credit; (2) modify the MOC and LOC tier and non-tier
rates and add a Floor broker MOC fee; (3) modify the fee for executions
at the close (except MOC, LOC and CO Orders), and Floor broker
executions swept into the close, excluding verbal interest above the
first 750,000 average daily volume (``ADV'') of aggregate executions at
the close; (4) introduce a Tier 4 Adding Credit; (5) introduce tiered
trading license fees; and (6) make certain non-substantive
organizational and clarifying changes, including grouping fees for all
executions at the close together.
    The proposed changes would only apply to fees and credits in
transactions in securities priced $1.00 or more.
    The Exchange proposes to implement these changes to its Price List
effective January 8, 2018.

Member Organization Non-Tier Adding Credit
    Member organizations are currently eligible for the Non-Tier Adding
Credit for all orders in securities priced $1.00 or more, other than
Midpoint Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') \5\ and Non-Display Reserve
orders, that add liquidity to the NYSE unless a higher credit applies.
The applicable rate for the Non-Tier Adding Credit is $0.0014 per
share. The Exchange proposes to lower this credit to $0.0012 per share.
The credits applicable to MPL orders and Non-Display Reserve orders
would be unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An MPL Order is an undisplayed limit order that
automatically executes at the mid-point of the best protected bid
(``PBB'') or best protected offer (``PBO''), as such terms are
defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57) (together, ``PBBO''). See
Rule 13. See also 17 CFR 242.600(b)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executions at the Close
Overview
    The Exchange proposes to group all fees relating to executions at
the close together in a table under a new proposed heading titled
``Executions at the Close Equity Per Share Charge--per transaction
(both sides).'' The current entries relating to charges for executions
at the close, including verbal interest and MOC/LOC Tiers 1 and 2,
would be moved and/or replaced with modified entries, as described more
fully below. The Exchange also proposes modifications to the rates for
non-tier MOC orders and a new fee for MOC order executed by Floor
brokers. Finally, the Exchange proposes modifications for charges for
executions at the close (except MOC, LOC and CO Orders), and Floor
broker executions swept into the close, excluding verbal interest above
the first 750,000 ADV of the aggregate of executions at the close by a
member organization.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange is not proposing to change the fees for verbal
interest at the close and for CO Orders. The Exchange proposes non-
substantive differences to describe these fees as the first and
second entries on the table with the fees associated with executions
at the close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOC/LOC Tiers and Non-Tier MOC/LOC
MOC/LOC Tier 1
    For MOC/LOC Tier 1, the Exchange currently charges $0.0007 per
share for all MOC and LOC orders from any member organization executing
ADV of MOC and LOC activity on the NYSE in that month of at least
0.575% of consolidated average daily volume (``CADV'') in NYSE-listed
securities (i.e., Tape A securities) during the billing month (``NYSE
CADV'').
    The Exchange proposes to move the MOC/LOC Tier 1 as the third [sic]
entry on the table with the charges associated with executions at the
close and modify it to provide that the MOC/LOC Tier 1 rates would be
available for all MOC and LOC orders from any member organization in
the prior three billing months executing (1) an ADV of MOC activity on
the NYSE of at least 0.45% of NYSE CADV, (2) an ADV of total close
activity (MOC/LOC and executions at the close) on the NYSE of at least
0.7% of NYSE CADV, and (3) whose MOC activity comprised at least 35% of
the member organization's total close activity (MOC/LOC and other
executions at the close).
    For member organizations qualifying for the MOC/LOC Tier 1
requirements, the Exchange proposes to retain the $0.0007 per share
charge for LOC executions and to lower the per share charge for MOC
executions to $0.0004 per share.
MOC/LOC Tier 2
    For MOC/LOC Tier 2, the Exchange currently charges $0.0008 per
share for all MOC and LOC orders from any member organization executing
(i) an ADV of MOC and LOC activity on the Exchange in that month of at
least 0.375% of NYSE CADV; or (ii) an ADV of MOC and LOC activity on
the Exchange in that month of at least 0.300% of NYSE CADV plus an ADV
of total close (MOC/LOC and executions at the close) activity on the
Exchange in that month of at least 0.475% of NYSE CADV.
    The Exchange proposes to move the MOC/LOC Tier 2 as the fourth
[sic] entry on the table with the charges associated with executions at
the close and modify it to provide that the MOC/LOC Tier 2 rates would
be available for all MOC and LOC orders from any member organization in
the prior three billing months executing (1) an ADV of MOC activity on
the NYSE of at least 0.35% of NYSE CADV, (2) an ADV of total close
activity (MOC/LOC and other executions at the close) on the NYSE of at
least 0.525% of NYSE CADV, and (3) whose MOC activity comprised at
least 35% of the member organization's total close activity (MOC/LOC
and other executions at the close).
    For member organizations qualifying for the MOC/LOC Tier 2
requirements, the Exchange proposes to retain the $0.0008 per share
charge for LOC executions and to lower the per share charge for MOC
executions to $0.0005 per share.
Non-Tier MOC/LOC
    The Exchange proposes to move fees for Non-Tier MOC/LOC rates,
which as proposed would include MOC Orders, LOC Orders, and MOC Orders
entered by a Floor broker, as the fifth [sic] entry on the table with
the charges associated with executions at the close.
    For Non-Tier MOC/LOC, the Exchange currently charges member
organizations $0.0011 per share for MOC and LOC executions, unless a
member organization meets specified thresholds set forth in the Price
List for MOC and LOC activity. The Exchange proposes that the Non-Tier
MOC/LOC rates would be available for any member organization not
meeting the above requirements for MOC/LOC Tier 1 or MOC/LOC Tier 2.
    For member organizations that qualify for Non-Tier MOC/LOC, the
Exchange proposes to lower the fee for MOC executions to $0.0010 per
share. The charge for Non-Tier LOC executions would remain the same at
$0.0011.
Floor Broker MOC Orders
    The Exchange propose [sic] a new fee for the execution of MOC
orders sent to a Floor broker for representation on the Exchange of
$0.0005 per share unless a lower tiered fee applies. The proposed fee
would appear in the table as part of the Non-Tier MOC/LOC entries.
Fees for d-Quotes and Other Executions at the Close
    The Exchange proposes to move charges for d-Quotes and other
executions at the close, which as proposed would include d-Quotes,
Floor broker executions swept into the close, excluding verbal
interest, and executions at the close but excluding MOC Orders, LOC
Orders, and CO Orders, as the sixth [sic] entry on the table with the
charges associated with executions at the close.
    Currently, the Exchange charges $0.0005 per share if a member
organization executes an ADV on the NYSE during the billing month in
excess of 750,000 shares in (1) executions at the close (except MOC and
LOC executions), and/or (2) Floor broker executions swept into the
close, excluding verbal interest. The fee is applicable to shares
executed in excess of 750,000 ADV, while no charge is applicable to
shares executed below 750,000 ADV.
    The Exchange proposes to continue not to charge member
organizations for the first 750,000 ADV of the aggregate of executions
at the close for d-Quote, Floor broker executions swept into the close,
excluding verbal interest, and

executions at the close, excluding MOC Orders, LOC Orders and CO
Orders. For d-Quote, Floor broker executions swept into the close,
excluding verbal interest, and executions at the close, excluding MOC
Orders, LOC Orders and CO Orders after the first 750,000 ADV of the
aggregate of executions at the close by a member organization, the
Exchange proposes to change the rate to $0.0007 per share.
Tier 4 Adding Credit
    The Exchange proposes to establish a new adding credit tier titled
the ``Tier 4 Adding Credit'' that would provide a credit of $0.0015 per
share for all orders, other than MPL and Non-Display Reserve orders,
that add liquidity to the NYSE if:
    (i) The member organization has Adding ADV in MPL orders that is at
least 4 million shares ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, and
    (ii) the member organization executes MOC and LOC orders of at
least 0.10% of NYSE CADV.
Trading License Fees
    Rule 300(b) provides, among other things, that the price per
trading license will be published in the Exchange's price list and that
a tiered pricing structure based on the number of trading licenses held
by a member organization may be utilized. The current trading license
fee in place since 2016 \7\ is $50,000 per trading license and no
charge for additional licenses held by a member organization. Regulated
Only Members, as defined in Rule 2(b)(ii), are charged an annual
administration fee of $25,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78233 (July 6,
2016), 81 FR 45190 (July 12, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to introduce tiered trading license fees and
group all charges relating to trading license fees in a table under the
``Trading License'' heading.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error
in the heading and change ``Licences'' to ``Licenses.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all member organizations, including Floor brokers with more
than ten trading licenses but excluding Regulated Only Members, the
trading license fee would remain unchanged at $50,000 for the first
license held by the member organization unless one of the other rates
is deemed applicable.
    For member organizations with 3-9 trading licenses, the Exchange
proposes a fee of $35,000 for the first license held by a member
organization that has Floor broker executions accounting for 40% or
more of the member organization's combined adding and taking volumes
during the billing month.
    For Floor brokers with 1-2 trading licenses, the Exchange proposes
a fee of $25,000 for the first license held by a member organization
that has Floor broker executions accounting for 40% or more of the
member organization's combined adding and taking volumes during the
billing month.
    As set forth in proposed footnote 15, there would continue to be no
charge for additional licenses held by a member organization. In
addition, the Exchange proposes not to charge for a trading license in
place for 10 calendar days or less in a calendar month and eliminate
the flat rate of $100 per day for such license. Further, a trading
license in place for 11 calendar days or more in a calendar month will
be charged the applicable license fee for that month. Finally, for
calculating the number of licenses described above, for the lower
rates, the number of licenses will be based on those held by the member
organization for 10 or more days in the billing month (including days
the Exchange is not open for the entire trading day).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange also proposes non-substantive, clarifying
changes to the current first sentence of footnote 15 to delete
``indicated above'' and add ``indicated'' before ``annual,''
``trading license'' before ``fee,'' and ``on a monthly basis'' after
``will be prorated.'' Footnote 15 as amended would continue to apply
to the first license held by a member organization in each category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume a member organization has 10 trading licenses
in a given billing month with 9 licenses being held for 10 or more days
that month and the tenth license being held for less than ten days.
Further assume that the member organization also had Floor broker
executions accounting for 40% or more of the member organization's
combined adding and taking volumes during that billing month. In such a
case, the member organization would qualify for the lower license fee
of $35,000 in that billing month, prorated monthly.
    If that same member organization in the following billing month
held the same number of licenses, but with all 10 being held for 10 or
more days, then the member organization would be billed the full rate
of $50,000 for that next billing month, prorated monthly, regardless of
whether that member organization had Floor broker executions accounting
for 40% or more of the member organization's combined adding and taking
volumes during that next billing month.
    The annual administration fee for Regulated Only Members, as
defined in Rule 2(b)(ii), would remain $25,000.
* * * * *
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member
organizations 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,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes for certain
executions at the close are reasonable. The Exchange's closing auction
is a recognized industry benchmark,\12\ and member organizations
receive a substantial benefit from the Exchange in obtaining high
levels of executions at the Exchange's closing price on a daily basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, the pricing and valuation of certain indices,
funds, and derivative products require primary market prints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Organization Non-Tier Adding Credit
    The Exchange believes that the change to the Member Organization
Non-Tier Adding Credit for executions of orders in securities with a
per share price of $1.00 or more is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it is intended to incentivize member
organizations to submit additional amounts of liquidity to the Exchange
to be eligible to receive the higher credits available from the Tier 1
Adding Credit, the Tier 2 Adding Credit, the Tier 3 Adding Credit and
the proposed Tier 4 Adding Credit. The Exchange believes that the
proposed lower credit for the Member Organization Non-Tier Adding
Credit is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would
apply equally to all member organizations.
MOC/LOC Tiers and Non-Tier MOC/LOC
    The Exchange believes that requiring an ADV of MOC activity on the
NYSE of at least 0.45% of NYSE CADV, an

ADV of Total Close activity on the NYSE of at least 0.7% of NYSE CADV,
and MOC activity comprised at least 35% of the member organization's
total close activity (MOC/LOC and other executions at the close) for
the MOC/LOC Tier 1 fee, as well the requiring an ADV of MOC activity on
the NYSE of at least 0.35% of NYSE CADV, an ADV of Total Close activity
on the NYSE of at least 0.525% of NYSE CADV, and MOC activity comprised
at least 35% of the member's total close activity (MOC/LOC and other
executions at the close) for the MOC/LOC Tier 2 fee, is reasonable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed changes would
encourage greater marketable and other liquidity at the closing
auction.
    The Exchange believes that charging a lower rate for MOC executions
than LOC executions is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory
because MOC orders are always marketable and therefore have a higher
likelihood of execution at the close. Charging a lower fee will
encourage higher volumes of MOC orders at the close, which should
result in a higher level of orders matched and greater liquidity for
all Exchange auction participants.
    The Exchange believes that introducing a requirement that at least
35% of the member organization's total close activity be comprised of
MOC activity in order to qualify for MOC/LOC Tier 1 or 2 rates is
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because MOC orders
contribute meaningfully to the price and size discovery, which is the
hallmark of the closing auction process. Charging a lower fee to member
organizations utilizing MOC orders as a significant component of their
closing auction participation will encourage higher volumes of MOC
orders at the close, which should result in robust price discovery, a
higher level of orders matched and greater liquidity for all Exchange
auction participants.
    The Exchange believes that lowering the MOC/LOC Non-Tier fee for
MOC orders is reasonable as it is comparable to the above change in MOC
rates for MOC/LOC Tier 1 and MOC/LOC Tier 2, and that MOC orders
contribute meaningfully to the price and size discovery, which is the
hallmark of the closing auction process. Charging a lower fee will
encourage higher volumes of MOC orders at the close, which should
result in a higher level of orders matched and greater liquidity for
all Exchange auction participants.
Floor Broker MOC Orders
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for executions of MOC
orders sent to a Floor broker for representation on the Exchange is
reasonable because it would encourage additional displayed liquidity on
the Exchange's closing auction. The Exchange believes the proposed
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would
continue to encourage member organizations to send orders to the
trading Floor for execution, thereby contributing to robust levels of
liquidity on the trading Floor, which benefits all market participants.
The Exchange further notes that the $0.0005 fee for Floor broker MOC
orders executed at the close is in line with the $0.0007 fee for Floor
broker executions swept into the close, excluding verbal interest.
Charges for d-Quotes and Other Executions at the Close
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to continue to not charge
member organizations for the first 750,000 ADV of the aggregate of
executions at the close for d-Quote, Floor broker executions swept into
the close, excluding verbal interest, and executions at the close,
excluding MOC Orders, LOC Orders, and CO Orders, as this will continue
to provide less active member organizations a no-cost mechanism to
participate in the closing auction. The proposed fee change for
executions above 750,000 ADV is also reasonable, in that it is lower
than applicable closing rates on the NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC
(``NASDAQ''). For example, the default fee for Continuous Book
executions in NASDAQ's ``Closing Cross'' is $0.00085 per share,
compared with the proposed $0.0007 fee for d-Quote, Floor broker
executions at the close, excluding verbal interest, and executions at
the close, excluding MOC Orders, LOC Orders, and CO Orders.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NASDAQ Rule 7018(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tier 4 Adding Credit
    The Exchange believes that the new Tier 4 Adding Credit of $0.0015
per share for transactions in stocks with a per share stock price of
$1.00 or more when adding liquidity is reasonable because it would
further contribute to incenting member organizations to provide
additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for member organizations. The Exchange believes that introducing a
requirement for Adding ADV in MPL Orders that is at least 4 million
shares ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM is reasonable and
not unfairly discriminatory because MPL orders provide opportunities
for market participants to interact with orders priced at the midpoint
of the PBBO, thus providing price improving liquidity to market
participants and increasing the quality of order execution on the
Exchange's market, which benefits all market participants. These
changes should encourage additional utilization of MPL Orders on the
Exchange. The Exchange further believes that introducing a requirement
for executions of MOC and LOC orders of at least 0.10% of NYSE CADV is
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will encourage
higher volumes of MOC and LOC orders at the close, which should result
in a higher level of orders matched and greater liquidity for all
Exchange auction participants.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed new Tier 4 Adding
Credit of $0.0015 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
all member organizations would benefit from such increased levels of
liquidity. In addition, the new Tier 4 Adding Credit would provide a
higher credit to member organizations that is reasonably related to the
value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes
of liquidity. The Exchange also believes that the proposed new Tier 4
Adding Credit is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
would provide several methods of qualifying for the credit, which would
attract multiple sources of liquidity to the Exchange.
Trading License Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to maintain the current
trading license fee, including the fee for Regulated Only Members, and
lower the fee for member organizations with 9 or less trading licenses
who have Floor broker executions accounting for 40% or more of the
member organization's combined adding and taking volumes during the
billing month as well as basing the requirement on licenses held 10 or
more days in the billing month, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all similarly situated member organizations
would continue to be subject to the same trading license fee structure
and because access to the Exchange's market would continue to be
offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The Exchange also
believes that the proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because all member organizations would continue to have the opportunity
to enjoy the benefits of the fee relief with respect to additional
trading licenses. The Exchange believes that allowing member
organizations

with 9 or less trading licenses that have the requisite Floor broker
volumes to obtain a license at a lower cost will help preserve the
diversity of the Exchange's membership and encourage smaller member
organizations to send orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that the threshold it has selected will continue to incent order flow
from multiple sources and help maintain the quality of the Exchange's
executions, which benefits all market participants. The Exchange
further believes that continuing to not charge for additional licenses
above the first license held by a member organization, not charging for
a trading license in place for 10 calendar days or less, and charging
the applicable trading license fee for a trading license in place for
11 calendar days or more is reasonable because it will continue to
encourage member organizations to hold additional trading licenses,
which will increase the number of market participants on the Exchange
trading Floor, thereby promoting liquidity, price discovery, and the
opportunity for price improvement for the benefit of all market
participants. The proposal is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply equally to all license holders
over the same number of days.
Non-Substantive Changes
    The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive changes to
consolidate and streamline the presentation of charges for executions
at the close and trading license fees into a table, correct a
typographical error and clarify the first sentence of footnote 15 are
reasonable because they are designed to provide greater specificity and
clarity to the Price List, thereby removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public
interest.
    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 the foregoing 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,\14\ 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
changes would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a
public exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and
enhancing order execution opportunities for member organizations. The
Exchange believes that this could promote competition between the
Exchange and other execution venues, including those that currently
offer similar order types and comparable transaction pricing, by
encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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) \15\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \16\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 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) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2018-03 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-NYSE-2018-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.

Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-03 and
should be submitted on or before February 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01417 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8724-8726]
[DOCID:fr26fe09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1141; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-025-AD;
Amendment 39-15799; AD 2009-02-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    During removal of forward and aft wing links, corrosion has been
found on the wing links and the wing link attachment bolts in areas
that are not readily accessible during the currently required
Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) zonal inspections or
Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme (CPCP) inspections. If
left uncorrected, such corrosion could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the wing to fuselage joint.

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

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 2, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 2,
2009.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2008 (73
FR 64897). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During removal of forward and aft wing links, corrosion has been
found on the wing links and the wing link attachment bolts in areas
that are not readily accessible during the currently required
Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) zonal inspections or
Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme (CPCP) inspections. If
left uncorrected, such corrosion could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the wing to fuselage joint.
    For this reason, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires
repetitive detailed visual inspections at the forward and aft wing
links and wing link attachment bolts for

signs of corrosion, replacement of corroded nuts and bolts and
repair of any defects.

    The MRBR and CPCP will be amended to include the repeat
inspections. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI
in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 1 product of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 20 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $1,600.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2009-02-09 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British
Aerospace Regional Aircraft): Amendment 39-15799. Docket No. FAA-
2008-1141; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-025-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 2,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes; and Model Avro 146-
RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes, certificated in any
category, all models, all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During removal of forward and aft wing links, corrosion has been
found on the wing links and the wing link attachment bolts in areas
that are not readily accessible during the currently required
Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) zonal inspections or
Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme (CPCP) inspections. If
left uncorrected, such corrosion could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the wing to fuselage joint.
    For this reason, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires
repetitive detailed visual inspections at the forward and aft wing
links and wing link attachment bolts for signs of corrosion,
replacement of corroded nuts and bolts and repair of any defects.
    The MRBR and CPCP will be amended to include the repeat
inspections.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions: Before
accumulating 48 months on the wing link since new, or within 48
months of a wing link being repaired in accordance with a BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited or European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) approved repair scheme, or within 24 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest, and thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 48 months, inspect the wing links in
accordance with paragraph 2.C. of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-203, dated May 7, 2007 (``the
service bulletin'').
    (1) If any corrosion is found on bolts or nuts, replace the
affected bolts and nuts with airworthy parts before next flight in
accordance with the service bulletin.
    (2) If any corrosion to the wing links is found during an
inspection, repair before further flight in accordance with a method
approved in accordance with EASA (or its delegated agent).

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0303, dated
December 14, 2007, and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.53-203, dated May 7, 2007, for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.53-203, dated May 7, 2007, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
Systems Regional Aircraft, 13850 McLearen Road, Herndon, Virginia
20171; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/
index.htm.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information that is
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221 or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 15, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-3366 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P