[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68555-68556]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24764]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96263; File No. SR-NYSE-2022-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Amend the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Provide a
Limited Exemption From the Shareholder Approval Requirements for
Closed-End Management Investment Companies With Equity Securities
Listed Under Section 102.04 of the Listed Company Manual

November 8, 2022.
    On February 23, 2022, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange''
or

``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Section 312.03 of the
NYSE Listed Company Manual to provide an exemption from certain
shareholder approval requirements of that rule for listed registered
closed-end management investment companies and business development
companies under certain circumstances. On March 8, 2022, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which amended and
replaced the proposed rule change in its entirety. The proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in
the Federal Register on March 15, 2022.\3\ The Commission has received
no comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94388 (Mar. 9,
2022), 87 FR 14589 (Mar. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 26, 2022, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On June 13, 2022, the Commission instituted
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.\7\ On September 9, 2022, the Commission
designated a longer period for Commission action on the proposed rule
change to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94795 (Apr. 26,
2022), 87 FR 25689 (May 2, 2022).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95093 (June 13,
2022), 87 FR 36548 (June 17, 2022).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95716 (Sept. 9,
2022), 87 FR 56716 (Sept. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 4, 2022, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (SR-NYSE-2022-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24764 Filed 11-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40069-40072]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15959]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0539; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-145-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2000-12-
11, that applies to certain Model A300 B4-600 and Model A300 B4-600R
series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections to
detect cracks in the bolt holes inboard and outboard of rib 9 on the
bottom booms of the front and rear wing spars, and repair if necessary.
Since we issued that AD, we have determined through a fleet survey and
an updated fatigue and damage tolerance analysis that the risk for
fatigue cracking on the front and rear spar bottom booms is higher than
was initially determined. This proposed AD would reduce the initial
inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection interval. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the bolt
holes of the wing spars, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of a wing spar.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 this proposed AD, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0539;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-145-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On June 9, 2000, we issued AD 2000-12-11, Amendment 39-11789 (65 FR
37853, June 19, 2000). That AD requires actions intended to address an
unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2000-12-11, the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0138,
dated July 26, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Full fatigue tests carried out by the manufacturer revealed
crack initiation from the bolts holes at inboard and outboard of rib
9, on the front and rear spar bottom booms. Similar cracks at the
same area were reported by A300-600 aeroplane operators.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, [Direction
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile] DGAC France issued AD
94-208-169(B)R2 [which corresponds to FAA AD 95-07-05 Amendment 39-
9187 (60 FR 17990, April 10, 1995)] to require an ultrasonic
inspection of holes inboard and outboard of rib 9 on the front and
rear spar bottom booms on Left Hand and Right Hand wings.
    Since that [DGAC] AD was issued, a fleet survey and updated
Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analysis have been performed in order
to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2)
exercise. The results of these analyses have shown that the risk for
these aeroplanes is higher than initially determined and that,
consequently, the inspection threshold and interval must be reduced
to allow timely detection of cracks and the accomplishment of an
applicable corrective action [and related investigative action].
    For the reasons explained above, this new [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD 94-208-169(B)R2, which is superseded,
and requires the accomplishment instructions within the new
thresholds and intervals specified in Revision 04 of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6037 [dated February 24,
2011].

    The related investigative action includes doing inspections for
cracking. The corrective actions include oversizing holes and
installing new fasteners, and for certain conditions, contacting the
FAA or EASA (or its delegated agent) for instructions. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, Revision
04, dated February 24, 2011. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, Revision 04, dated
February 24, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions using a method approved by the
FAA or the EASA (or its delegated agent). In light of the type of
repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and
consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have
determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair approved by the FAA or
the EASA (or its delegated agent) would be acceptable for compliance
with this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 29 products of U.S. registry.
    We estimate that it would take about 18 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,874
per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD
on U.S. operators to be $127,716, or $4,404 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    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);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2000-12-11, Amendment 39-11789 (65 FR 37853, June 19, 2000), and adding
the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2013-0539; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
145-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 19, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2000-12-11, Amendment 39-11789 (65 FR
37853, June 19, 2000).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-
622, B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; certificated in any category;
all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 10161 has been incorporated in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a fleet survey and an updated fatigue
and damage tolerance analysis indicating a high risk for fatigue
cracking on the front and rear spar bottom booms. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the bolt holes of
the wing spars, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of a wing spar.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD: Perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect fatigue
cracking of the bolt holes inboard and outboard of rib 9 on the
bottom booms of the front and rear wing spars, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instruction of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-57-6037, Revision 04, dated February 24, 2011, except as
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable time specified
in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) For normal range airplanes, at the later of the times in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 14,100 flight cycles or 30,400 flight hours since
airplane first flight or within 14,100 flight cycles or 30,400
flight hours since airplane modification done as specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6039,
whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 1,600 flight cycles or 3,400 flight hours, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For short range airplanes, at the later of the times in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 15,200 flight cycles or 22,800 flight hours since
airplane first flight, or since airplane modification done as
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6039, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 1,700 flight cycles or 2,500 flight hours, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Repetitive Inspection Compliance Times

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2)
of this AD, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD.
    (1) For normal range airplanes: Repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 3,900 flight cycles or 8,400 flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For short range airplanes: Repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 4,200 flight cycles or 6,300 flight
hours, whichever occurs first.

(i) Corrective Action for Cracking

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking
including applicable related investigative and corrective actions,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, Revision 04, dated February
24, 2011, except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Do
related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD at intervals not to exceed the applicable time specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD. Corrective actions required by this
paragraph do not constitute terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(j) Definition of Short Range and Long Range Airplanes

    For purposes of this AD, short range airplanes are those with an
average flight time lower than 1.5 flight hours, and normal range
airplanes are those with an average flight time equal to or higher
than 1.5 flight hours.

(k) Exception to Service Information

    Where the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, Revision 04, dated February 24, 2011,
specify contacting Airbus for an approved repair: Before further
flight, contact either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent), for instructions and do
those instructions.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using any of the service
bulletins specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(4) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, dated August
1, 1994.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, Revision 01,
dated August 31, 1995.
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, Revision 02,
dated January 9, 2001.
    (4) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, Revision 03,
dated January 11, 2002.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    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. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (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) AMOCs Approved Previously: AMOCs approved previously in
accordance with AD 2000-12-11, Amendment 39-11789 (65 FR 37853, June
19, 2000), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of
this AD.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0138,
dated July 26, 2012, and the service information specified in
paragraphs (m)(1)(i) through (m)(1)(iii) of this AD; for related
information.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, Revision 04,
dated February 24, 2011.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, dated August 1, 1994.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6037, Revision 01, dated
August 31, 1995.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18, 2013.
John Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-15959 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Appendix XI: Additional Benefits Information

6.1 Developing an air quality estimate of full attainment with the
alternative ozone standards

As discussed in chapter 3, the modeled attainment scenarios were not
sufficient to simulate full attainment with each of the three
alternative ozone standards analyzed. To meet our analytical goal of
estimating the human health benefits of full simulated attainment with
each of these standard alternatives, it became necessary to derive an
estimate of the full attainment air quality increment through a simple
monitor rollback approach.

We rolled back the values at each monitor such that no monitor in the
U.S. exceeded the alternative standard in question. This approach makes
the bounding assumption that ozone concentrations can be reduced only at
monitors projected to exceed the alternative standards. From a benefits
perspective, this approach leads to a downward bias in the estimates
because populations are assumed to be exposed at a distance weighted
average of surrounding monitors. Thus, any individual’s reduction in
exposure from a change at a given monitor will be weighted less if there
are other attaining monitors in close proximity.

We determined projected attainment status of each monitor by calculating
design values (see chapter/appendix __ for a discussion of this
technique). However, to estimate changes in ozone-related health effects
resulting from improvement in air quality, the BenMAP model requires a
series of metrics. When performing a benefits assessment with air
quality modeling data, BenMAP calculates these metrics based on the
distribution of CMAQ-modeled hourly ozone concentrations for the ozone
season. However, because we were performing a benefits assessment based
on monitor values that have been rolled-back, it was necessary to derive
each of these metrics outside of the BenMAP model.  Thus, we first
developed a scaling ratio that related the calculated design value to
each of the ozone metrics.

A summary of this procedure is as follows:

Import partial attainment 0.080 calculated design values into the BenMAP
model

Perform a spatial interpolation of these design values using the Voronoi
Neighborhood Averaging algorithm. Design values are then interpolated to
the CMAQ grid cell.

Import distribution of air quality modeled daily and hourly ozone
concentrations into BenMAP. Create air quality grid in BenMAP using
spatial and temporal scaling technique. This procedure creates grid cell
level summer season ozone metrics (1 hour maximum, 5 hour average, 8
hour maximum, 8 hour average and 24 hour average).

Calculate grid cell-level ratio of each ozone metric to calculated
design value. The result of this calculation is a grid cell-level ratio
of metric to design value that can then be subsequently used to scale
the calculated design value and thus derive each of the metrics.

After having calculated these scaling ratios we then performed the
monitor rollback as follows:

Roll back the calculated 0.080 ppm partial attainment design value to
just equal the 0.080 ppm standard. This process creates a new baseline
design value grid.

Scale the design value grid cell values to ozone metric grid cell values
by using ratios described above.

Create new 0.084 ppm baseline air quality grid from grid cell-level
ozone metrics.

Roll back the calculate calculated 0.070 ppm and 0.065 ppm partial
attainment design values at each monitor to just each the 0.070 ppm and
0.065 ppm standards, respectively.

Scale the calculated full attainment design value to grid cell-level
ozone metric using ratios described above.

Create new 0.070 ppm and 0.065 ppm air quality grids from grid
cell-level ozone metrics.

Perform benefits analysis with baseline and control grids.

To develop a 0.075 ppm full attainment air quality grid we performed an
interpolation of the 0.070 ppm full attainment air quality grid, rather
than a monitor rollback. This interpolation entailed the following
steps:

We identified any monitors that were projected to not attain 0.075 ppm
alternative in the 0.084 ppm base case air quality grid.

For these monitors we calculated an adjustment factor that would scale
down the air quality improvement at that monitor. The purpose of this
adjustment was to ensure that the improvement in air quality at that
monitor reflected the attainment of the 0.075 ppm standard. This ratio
was calculated by dividing the improvement in the design value necessary
to attain 0.075 ppm by the improvement in the design value necessary to
attain 0.070 ppm. For example, a monitor whose baseline is 0.084 would
receive 2/3 of the air quality improvement from attaining 0.075 ppm than
they would from attaining 0.070 ppm.

We then interpolated these monitor-specific ratios to the grid
cell-level in BenMAP.

Finally, we used these grid cell-level ratios as the basis for scaling
down the grid cell-level estimates of incidence and valuation from the
0.070 ppm analysis.

6.2 Partial Attainment PM2.5 Incidence and Valuation Estimates

Tables __ through __ below summarize the estimates of PM2.5 incidence
and valuation resulting from the 0.070 ppm partial attainment scenario.
These estimates provided the basis for the full attainment PM2.5
co-benefit estimates found in Chapter 6 of this RIA.

Table 6-15: Illustrative 0.070 ppm Partial Attainment Scenario:
Estimated Reductions in PM Premature Mortality associate with PM
co-benefit (95th percentile confidence intervals provided in
parentheses)

	Eastern U.S.	Western U.S. Excluding California	California	National PM
co-benefits

Mortality Impact Functions Derived from Epidemiology Literature

	ACS StudyA	510

(170--840)	0.17

(0.06--0.27)	47

(16—77)	550

(190--920)

Harvard Six-City StudyB 	1,100

(570--1,700)	0.4

(0.18--0.6)	110

(53--160)	1,300

(630--1,900)

Woodruff et al 1997 (infant mortality)	1.1

(0.5—1.7)	0.04

(0.02--0.06)	0.14

(0.07--0.2)	1.3

(0.6—2)

Mortality Impact Functions Derived from Expert Elicitation

Expert A	1,600

(170--3,000)	77

(8.2--150)	140

(15--270)	1,800

(190--3,400)

Expert B	1,200

(140--2,600)	56

(4--130)	110

(13--240)	1,400

(160--3,000)

Expert C	1,200

(140--2,700)	58

(6.6--130)	110

(12--250)	1,400

(150--3,000)

Expert D	820

(85--1,400)	40

(4.1—68)	76

(7.8--130)	940

(96—1,600)

Expert E	2,000

(890—3,000)	95

(44--150)	180

(82--280)	2,200

(1,000--3,500)

Expert F	1,100

(740--1,600)	51

(33—74)	99

(67--150)	1,200

(840—1,800)

Expert G	690

(0—1,300)	34

(0—65)	63

(0--120)	790

(0--1,500)

Expert H	880

(-46--2,100)	43

(-2.2—100)	80

(-4.2--200)	1,000

(-52—2,400)

Expert I	1,200

(60--2,200)	57

(3--110)	110

(5.5--200)	1,300

(69—2,500)

Expert J	950

(230--2,200)	46

(11—110)	87

(21--200)	1,100

(260--2,500)

Expert K	190

(0--970)	8.8

(0—47)	19

(0—95)	220

Expert L	860

(120--1,600)	33

(0.04--81)	79

(11--150)	970

(130—1,900)

Table 6-16: Illustrative 0.070 ppm Partial Attainment Scenario:
Estimated Reductions in Morbidity Associated with PM Co-benefit (95th
percentile confidence intervals provided in parentheses)

	Eastern U.S.	Western U.S. Excluding California	California	National PM
co-benefits

Morbidity Impact Functions Derived from Epidemiology Literature

	Chronic Bronchitis (age >25 and over)	380

(42-720)	12

(1.3—21)	43

(4.6—81)	440

(47—820)

Nonfatal myocardial infarction (age >17)	1,100

(560—1,700)	0.4

(0.2—0.6)	94

(47—140)	1,200

(610—1,800)

Hospital admissions--respiratory (all ages)	130

(59—200)	--	10

(4.4-15)	140

(63—220)

Hospital admissions-- cardiovascular

(age >17)	270

(160—370)	--	20

(12—28)	290

(170—400)

Emergency room visits for asthma

(age <19)	560

(310—820)	--	22

(12—32)	590

(320—850)

Acute bronchitis (age 8-12)	990

(-130—2,100)	32

(-4.1—67)	130

(-17—270)	1,200

(-150—2,400)

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14)	8,400

(3,600—13,000)	3.6

(1.6—5.5)	1,200

(520—1,900)	9,600

(4,200—15,000)

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children age 9-18)	6,100

(1,500—11,000)	2.6

(0.7—4.6)	870

(220—1,500)	7,000

(1,800—12,000)

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children age 6--18)	7,700

(550—24,000)	3.4

(0.24—11)	1,100

(77—3,400)	8,700

(620—28,000)

Work loss days (age 18-65)	53,000

(46,000—61,000)	20

(17—22)	7,200

(6,100—8,200)	61,000

(52,000—69,000)

Minor restricted activity days (age 18-65)	320,000

(260,000—370,000)	120

(100—140)	42,000

(35,000—49,000)	360,000

(300,000—420,000)

A All estimates rounded to two significant figures. As such, confidence
intervals may not be symmetrical and totals will not sum across columns.
All estimates incremental to 2006 PM NAAQS RIATable 6-33: Illustrative
Strategy to Partially Attain 0.070 ppm: Estimated Partial Attainment
Value of Reductions in PM2.5-Related Premature Mortality Associated with
PM co-benefit (3 percent discount rate, in millions of 1999$) 95th
Percentile Confidence Intervals Provided in Parentheses

	Eastern U.S.	Western U.S. Excluding California	California	National PM
co-benefits

Mortality Impact Functions Derived from Epidemiology Literature

	ACS StudyA	$2,900

($410--$6,700)	$1

($0.14--$2.2)	$270

($38--$610)	$3,200

($450--$7,300)

Harvard Six-City StudyB	$6,600

($1,100--$14,000)	$2.1

($0.35--$4.6)	$610

($98--$1,300)	$7,200

($1,200--$15,000)

Woodruff et al 1997 (infant mortality)	$6.3

($1--$14)	$0.2

($0.03--$0.5)	$0.8

($0.12--$1.7)	$7.3

($1.1--$16)

Mortality Impact Functions Derived from Expert Elicitation

Expert A	$9,100

($810--$23,000)	$440

($51--$1,100)	$830

($75--$2,100)	$10,000

($930--$26,000)

Expert B	$6,900

($470--$21,000)	$320

($16--$1,000)	$630

($42--$2,000)	$7,900

($520--$24,000)

Expert C	$6,800

($620--$21,000)	$340

($38--$990)	$630

($57--$1,900)	$7,800

($710--$23,000)

Expert D	$4,800

($500--$11,000)	$230

($30--$550)	$440

($46--$1,000)	$5,400

($570--$13,000)

Expert E	$11,000

($1,800--$25,000)	$550

($120--$1,200)	$1,000

($160--$2,300)	$13,000

($2,000--$28,000)

Expert F	$6,200

($1,100--$14,000)	$290

($67--$630)	$570

(100--$1,200)	$7,100

($1,300--$15,000)

Expert G	$4,000

(0--$11,000)	$200

(0--$530)	$370

(0--$990)	$4,600

(0--$12,000)

Expert H	$5,100

($11--$16,000)	$250

(0.7--$770)	$470

($1--$1,500)	$5,800

($12--$18,000)

Expert I	$6,800

($570--$17,000)	$330

($35--$840)	$620

($53--$1,600)	$7,700

($650--$19,000)

Expert J	$5,500

($700--$17,000)	$270

($44--$810)	$500

($64--$1,500)	$6,200

($790--$19,000)

Expert K	$1,100

(0--$6,500)	$51

(0--$320)	$110

(0--$650)	$1,300

(0--$7,500)

Expert L	$5,000

($440--$13,000)	$190

($0.2--$640)	$460

($39--$1,200)	$5,700

Table 6-34: Illustrative Strategy to Partially Attain 0.070 ppm:
Estimated Partial Attainment Monetary Value of Reductions in
PM2.5-Related Premature Mortality Associated with PM co-benefit (7
percent discount rate, in millions of 1999$) 95th Percentile Confidence
Intervals Provided in Parentheses

	Eastern U.S.	Western U.S. Excluding California	California	National PM
co-benefits

Mortality Impact Functions Derived from Epidemiology Literature

	ACS StudyA	$2,500

($350--$5,600)	$0.8

(0.1--$1.9)	$230

($32--$520)	$2,700

($380--$6,100)

Harvard Six-City StudyB	$5,600

($890--$12,000)	$1.8

($0.3--$3.9)	$510

($82--$1,100)	$6,100

($980--$13,000)

Woodruff et al 1997 (infant mortality)	$5.3

($0.81--$12)	$0.2

($0.03--$0.38)	$0.7

($0.1--$1.4)	$6.2

($0.9--$14)

Mortality Impact Functions Derived from Expert Elicitation

Expert A	$7,700

($880--$19,000)	$370

($43--$940)	$700

($81--$1,800)	$8,700

($780--$22,000)

Expert B	$5,800

($510--$18,000)	$270

($13--$870)	$530

($46--$1,700)	$6,600

($440--$21,000)

Expert C	$5,800

($660--$17,000)	$280

($32--$830)	$530

($61--$1,600)	$6,600

($600--$19,400)

Expert D	$4,000

($520--$9,500)	$200

($26--$470)	$370

($48--$880)	$4,600

($480--$11,000)

Expert E	$9,500

($2,000--$21,000)	$470

($98--$1,000)	$870

($180--$1,900)	$11,000

($1,700--$24,000)

Expert F	$5,300

($1,300--$11,000)	$250

($57--$530)	$480

($120--$1,000)	$6,000

($1,100--$13,000)

Expert G	$3,400

(0--$9,100)	$160

(0--$440)	$310

(0--$830)	$3,800

(0--$10,00)

Expert H	$4,300

($12--$13,000)	$210

($0.6--$650)	$390

($1.1--$1,200)	$4,900

($10--$15,000)

Expert I	$5,900

($600--$14,000)	$290

($30--$700)	$540

($55--$1,300)	$6,700

($550--$16,000)

Expert J	$4,600

($750--$14,000)	$230

($37--$680)	$420

($69--$1,300)	$5,300

($670--$16,000)

Expert K	$920

(0--$5,500)	$43

(0--$270)	$93

(0--$550)	$1,100

Expert L	$4,200

($460--$11,000)	$160

($0.16--$540)	$380

($42--$1,000)	$4,700

($400--$13,000)

Table 6-35: Illustrative Strategy to Partially Attain 0.070 ppm:
Estimated Partial Attainment Monetary Value of Reductions in Risk of
PM2.5-Related Morbidity Reductions Associated with PM co-benefit (in
millions of 1999$) 95th Percentile Confidence Intervals Provided in
Parentheses

	Eastern U.S.	Western U.S. Excluding California	California	National PM

co-benefits

Morbidity Impact Functions Derived from Epidemiology Literature

	Chronic Bronchitis (age >25 and over)	$160

($8.7--$720)	$4.7

($0.3--$22)	$17

($1--$80)	$180

($10--$820)

Nonfatal myocardial infarction (age >17)

3% discount rate	$93

($25--$200)	$0.03

($0.01--$0.7)	$8

($2.1--$17)	$100

($27--$220)

Nonfatal myocardial infarction (age >17)

7% discount rate	$90

($23--$200)	$0.03

($0.01--$0.7)	$7.7

($2--$17)	$98

($25--$220)

Hospital admissions--respiratory (all ages)	$2.1

($1--$3.1)	---	$0.2

($0.08--$0.2)	$2.3

($1.1--$3.4)

Hospital admissions-- cardiovascular (age >17)	$5.5

($3.4--$7.5)	---	$0.4

($0.3--$0.57)	$5.9

($3.7--$8.1)

Emergency room visits for asthma (age <19)	$0.2

($0.04--$0.3)	---	---	$0.2

($0.09--$0.26)

Acute bronchitis (age 8-12)	$0.4

($-0.02--$1)	---	$0.05

($-0.002--$0.1)	$0.4

($-0.02--$1.2)

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14)	$0.1

($0.04--$0.27)	---	$0.02

($0.006--$0.04)	$0.15

($0.05--$0.3)

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children age 9-18)	$0.2

($0.03—0.38)	---	$0.022

($0.005--$0.05)	$0.2

($0.04--$0.44)

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children age 6--18)	$0.34

($0.03--$1.3)	---	$0.05

($0.004--$0.18)	$0.4

($0.03--$1.5)

Work loss days (age 18-65)	$5.3

($4.6--$6)	---	$0.9

($0.7--$1)	$7.4

($6.4--$8.3)

Minor restricted activity days (age 18-65)	$7.9

($0.37--$15)	---
$1.1⠍〤〮ⴵ␭⤲␇ഹ␨⸰㈴ⴭㄤ⤷܇ޠޠޠޠޠഇ 敂䵮
偁吠捥湨捩污䄠灰湥楤散ⱳ䄠瑢䄠獳捯慩整㩳䴠祡㈠〰
⸵倠条ⵃ㈱മ̍഍ഄ̍഍ഄግ䅐䕇†ക഍倓䝁⁅ᐠᔱ
഍

഍

഍഍⁁桔獥楴慭整椠⁳慢敳湯琠敨挠湯散瑮慲楴湯
爭獥潰獮䌨刭
畦据楴湯搠癥汥灯摥映潲桴瑳摵
⁹景琠he American Cancer Society cohort reported in Pope et al
(2002), which has previously been reported as the primary estimate in
recent RIAs

B Based on Laden et al (2006) reporting of the extended Six-cities
study; to be reviewed by the EPA-SAB for advice on the appropriate
method for incorporating what has previously been a sensitivity
estimate.

C All estimates rounded to two significant figures. As such, confidence
intervals may not be symmetrical and totals will not sum across columns.
All estimates incremental to 2006 PM NAAQS RIA

A The estimate is based on the concentration-response (C-R) function
developed from the study of the American Cancer Society cohort reported
in Pope et al (2002), which has previously been reported as the primary
estimate in recent RIAs

B Based on Laden et al (2006) reporting of the extended Six-cities
study; to be reviewed by the EPA-SAB for advice on the appropriate
method for incorporating what has previously been a sensitivity
estimate.

C All estimates rounded to two significant figures. As such, confidence
intervals may not be symmetrical and totals will not sum across columns.
All estimates incremental to 2006 PM NAAQS RIA.

A The estimate is based on the concentration-response (C-R) function
developed from the study of the American Cancer Society cohort reported
in Pope et al (2002), which has previously been reported as the primary
estimate in recent RIAs

B Based on Laden et al (2006) reporting of the extended Six-cities
study; to be reviewed by the EPA-SAB for advice on the appropriate
method for incorporating what has previously been a sensitivity
estimate.

C All estimates rounded to two significant figures. As such, confidence
intervals may not be symmetrical and totals will not sum across columns.
All estimates incremental to 2006 PM NAAQS RIA


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66111-66113]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23047]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78888; File Nos. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-109; SR-NYSEMKT-2016-
73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE MKT LLC;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Provide for the Rejection of
Certain Electronic Complex Orders

September 20, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On August 3, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE MKT LLC
(``NYSE MKT'') (each an ``Exchange'' and, together, the ``Exchanges'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ proposed rule changes
to amend NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(b) and NYSE MKT Rule 980(d), respectively,
to allow the Exchanges to reject certain Electronic Complex Orders.\4\
The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the in the
Federal Register on August 17, 2016.\5\ The Commission received no
comments regarding the proposals. This order approves the proposed rule
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ NYSE Arca Rule 6.91 defines ``Electronic Complex Order'' to
mean, for purposes of that rule, ``any Complex Order as defined in
Rule 6.62(e) or any Stock/Option Order or Stock/Complex Order as
defined in Rule 6.62(h) that is entered into the NYSE Arca System.''
NYSE MKT Rule 980 defines ``Electronic Complex Order'' to mean, for
purposes of that rule, ``any Complex Order as defined in Rule
900.3NY(e) that is entered into the System.''
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 78546 (August 11,
2016), 81 FR 54867 (``NYSE Arca Notice''); and 78544 (August 11,
2016), 81 FR 54893 (``NYSE MKT Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposals

    NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT each require market makers to use risk
limitation mechanisms that automatically remove a market maker's quotes
in all series of an options class when the market maker's risk settings
are triggered.\6\ The Exchanges state that the risk settings are
designed to mitigate the risk of multiple executions against a market
maker's quotes occurring simultaneously across multiple series and
multiple options classes.\7\ According to the Exchanges, the risk
settings allow market makers to provide liquidity across potentially
thousands of options series without being at risk of executing the full
cumulative size of all of their quotes before being given adequate
opportunity to adjust their quotes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 81 FR at 54868; and NYSE MKT Notice,
81 FR at 54893. Pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.40(b)(3), (c)(3), and
(d)(3), and NYSE MKT Rule 928(b)(3), (c)(3), and (d)(3), the
Exchanges establish a time period during which their respective
Systems calculate: (1) The number of trades executed by a market
maker in a specified options class; (2) the volume of contracts
executed by a market maker in a specified options class; or (3) the
percentage of a market maker's quoted size in specified options
class (the ``risk settings''). When a market maker has breached its
risk settings (i.e., has traded more than the contract or volume
limit or cumulative percentage limit of a class during the specified
measurement interval), each Exchange's System cancels all of the
market maker's quotes in that class until the market maker notifies
the Exchange that it will resume submitting quotes. See id. See also
NYSE Arca Rule 6.40, Commentary .02; and NYSE MKT Rule 980NY,
Commentary .02.
    \7\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 81 FR at 54868; and NYSE MKT Notice,
81 FR at 54894.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An Electronic Complex Order may execute against quotes or
individual orders comprising the Complex Order (the ``leg markets''),
or against Electronic Complex Orders resting in the Consolidated
Book.\9\ An incoming Electronic Complex Order will execute against
customer interest in the leg markets before executing against resting
Electronic Complex Orders at the same price (i.e., at the same total
net debit or credit), provided that the leg market interest can execute
the Electronic Complex Order in full or in a permissible ratio.\10\
When an Electronic

Complex Order executes against leg market interest, the execution of
the individual legs is processed as a single transaction package, not
as a series of individual transactions, because the execution of each
leg of the Electronic Complex Order is contingent on the execution of
the other legs of the order.\11\ Because the market maker risk settings
are calculated after the execution of all of the legs of the
transaction, rather than after the execution of each individual leg of
the transaction, an Electronic Complex Order that executes against leg
market interest may execute before triggering a market maker's risk
settings, essentially bypassing the risk settings.\12\ The Exchanges
note that if the same legs were sent as individual orders, rather than
as components of a complex order, the risk settings might be
triggered.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. See also NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(a)(2)(ii); and NYSE MKT
Rule 980NY(c)(ii).
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 81 FR at 54868; and NYSE MKT Notice,
81 FR at 54894.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchanges, Electronic Complex Order where two or
more legs are buying (selling) calls (puts) raise particular concerns
because these ``directional'' complex orders are aggressively buying or
selling volatility.\14\ The Exchanges state that they have seen a
recent increase in the use of directional complex orders as a way to
trade against multiple series on the same side of the market without
triggering Market Maker risk settings, thereby undermining the purpose
of the risk settings.\15\ To address this concern, the Exchanges
propose to adopt NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(b)(4) and NYSE MKT Rule
980NY(d)(4), which provide that an Electronic Complex Order will be
rejected if it is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. The Exchanges note that the majority of electronic
complex orders are calendar and vertical spreads, butterflies and
straddles, which are designed to hedge a potential move of the
underlying security or to capture premium from an anticipated market
event. See id.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Composed of two legs that are (a) both buy orders or both sell
orders, and (b) both legs are calls or both legs are puts; \16\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchanges states that the following types of orders
would be rejected under NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(b)(4)(i) and NYSE MKT
Rule 980NY(d)(4)(i): Buy Call 1, Buy Call 2; Sell Call 1, Sell Call
2; Buy Put 1, Buy Put 2; and Sell Put 1, Sell Put 2. See NYSE Arca
Notice, 81 FR at 54869; and NYSE MKT Notice, 81 FR at 54894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) composed of three or more legs and (a) all legs are buy
orders; or (b) all legs are sell orders.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchanges state that the following types of orders
would be rejected under NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(b)(4)(ii) and NYSE MKT
Rule 980NY(d)(4)(ii): Buy Call 1, Buy Call 2, Buy Put 1; Buy Put 1,
Buy Put 2, Buy Put 3; Buy Call 1, Buy Call 2, Buy Call 3; Buy Put 1,
Buy Put 2, Buy Call 3; and Sell Put 1, Sell Put 2, Sell Call 1. See
id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges believe that the potential risk of the specified
directional Electronic Complex Orders undermining the efficacy of
market makers' risk settings outweighs any potential benefit to market
participants submitting such orders packaged as Electronic Complex
Orders.\18\ The Exchanges also believe that the proposal will help to
eliminate a degree of unnecessary risk borne by market makers when
fulfilling their quoting obligations and encourage them to provide
tighter and deeper markets, to the benefit of all market
participants.\19\ The Exchanges note that market participants will
continue to be able to enter each leg of these directional complex
orders as separate orders.\20\ The Exchanges state that other exchanges
have adopted rules designed to prevent complex orders from effectively
bypassing market maker risk parameters.\21\ Because of the non-
traditional nature of directional complex orders, the Exchanges believe
that it is unlikely that directional complex orders would execute
against complex order interest.\22\ Accordingly, the Exchanges believe
that rejecting directional Electronic Complex Orders outright, rather
than simply preventing them from executing against leg market interest,
would have the same practical impact for order sending firms and would
be the most effective and transparent means of handling these
orders.\23\ The Exchanges also believe that rejecting, and therefore
preventing the execution of, directional Electronic Complex Orders
provides clarity with respect to the disposition of the orders and
assures that the market maker risk settings will operate as
intended.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 81 FR at 54869; and NYSE MKT Notice,
81 FR at 54894.
    \19\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 81 FR at 54869; and NYSE MKT Notice,
81 FR at 54895.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 81 FR at 54869; NYSE MKT Notice, 81
FR at 54894. See also CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(2)(B) and ISE Rule
722(b)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) and Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
73023 (September 9, 2014), 79 FR 55033 (order approving File No. SR-
ISE-2014-10); 72986 (September 4, 2010), 79 FR 53798 (September 10,
2014) (order approving File No. SR-CBOE-2014-017); 77297 (March 4,
2016), 81 FR 12764 (March 10, 2016) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of File No. SR-CBOE-2016-014); and 76106 (October 8,
2015), 80 FR 62125 (October 15, 2015) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-CBOE-2014-081). The Exchanges
acknowledge that CBOE and ISE do not reject the complex orders
identified as presenting a risk to market makers. See NYSE Arca
Notice, 81 FR at 54869; NYSE MKT Notice, 81 FR at 54894.
    \22\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 81 FR at 54869; and NYSE MKT Notice,
81 FR at 54895.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchanges propose to delete the words ``Types of''
from NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(b) and NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(d) because the
subsequent paragraphs in the rules describe certain requirements for
Electronic Complex Orders, rather than types of Electronic Complex
Orders.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 81 FR at 54868; and NYSE MKT Notice,
81 FR at 54894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\26\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The proposals are designed to prevent the Electronic Complex
Orders specified in NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(b)(4) and NYSE MKT Rule
980NY(d)(4) from undermining the efficacy of market makers' risk
settings. The Exchanges believe that preserving the efficacy of market
makers' risk settings could reduce risks to market makers, thereby
encouraging them to provide additional liquidity and narrower quote
spreads.\28\ The Commission notes that other options exchanges have
adopted similar rules.\29\ In addition, the Commission notes that
market participants will be able to submit the individual component
legs of the orders specified in NYSE Arca Rule 6.91(b)(4) and NYSE MKT
Rule 980NY(d)(4) as separate orders for execution against leg market
interest. Finally, the Commission believes that the deletion from NYSE
Arca Rule 6.91(b) and NYSE MKT Rule 980NY(d) of references to ``Types
of'' Electronic Complex Orders will help to assure that the Exchanges'
rules clearly

present the requirements applicable to Electronic Complex Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(5).
    \28\ See NYSE Arca Notice, 81 FR at 54869; NYSE MKT Notice, 81
FR at 54895.
    \29\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(2)(B) and ISE Rule
722(b)(3)(ii)(A) and (B). However, as noted above, CBOE and ISE do
not reject the orders identified as presenting a risk to market
makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\30\ that the proposed rule changes (File Nos. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-109
and SR-NYSEMKT-2016-73) are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23047 Filed 9-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15090-15092]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05906]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 35

[EPA-R09-0AR-2014-0120; FRL-9908-06-Region 9]

Clean Air Act Grant: South Coast Air Quality Management District;
Opportunity for Public Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Action; determination with request for comments and
notice of opportunity for public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a proposed
determination that the reduction in expenditures of non-Federal funds
for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in support
of its continuing air program under section 105 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), for the calendar year 2013 is a result of non-selective
reductions in expenditures. This determination, when final, will permit
the SCAQMD to receive grant funding for FY2014 from the EPA under
section 105 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments and/or requests for a public hearing must be received
by EPA at the address stated below by April 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0120, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions.
    2. Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    3. Mail to: Gary Lance (Air-8), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Lance, EPA Region IX, Grants &
Program Integration Office, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email address at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provides grant support for the continuing air programs of eligible
state, local, and tribal agencies. In accordance with CAA section
105(a)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 35.145(a), the Regional Administrator may
provide air pollution control agencies up to three-fifths of the
approved costs of implementing programs for the prevention and control
of air pollution. Section 105 contains two cost-sharing provisions
which

recipients must meet to qualify for a CAA section 105 grant. An
eligible entity must meet a minimum 40% match. In addition, to remain
eligible for section 105 funds, an eligible entity must continue to
meet the minimum match requirement as well as meet a maintenance of
effort (MOE) requirement under section 105(c)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR
35.146. Program activities relevant to the match consist of both
recurring and non-recurring expenses. The MOE provision requires that a
state or local agency spend at least the same dollar level of funds as
it did in the previous grant year, but only for the costs of recurring
activities. Specifically, section 105(c)(1) provides that ``no agency
shall receive any grant under this section during any fiscal year when
its expenditures of non-Federal funds for recurrent expenditures for
air pollution control programs will be less than its expenditures were
for such programs during the preceding fiscal year.'' Pursuant to CAA
section 105(c)(2), however, EPA may still award a grant to an agency
not meeting the requirements of section 105(c)(1), ``if the
Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing,
determines that a reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-
selective reduction in the expenditures in the programs of all
Executive branch agencies of the applicable unit of Government.'' These
statutory requirements are repeated in EPA's implementing regulations
at 40 CFR 35.140 through 35.148. EPA issued additional guidance to
recipients on what constitutes a nonselective reduction on September
30, 2011. In consideration of legislative history, the guidance
clarified that a non-selective reduction does not necessarily mean that
each Executive branch agency need be reduced in equal proportion.
However, it must be clear to EPA, from the weight of evidence, that a
recipient's CAA-related air program is not being disproportionately
impacted or singled out for a reduction.
    A section 105 recipient must submit a final financial status report
no later than 90 days from the close of its grant period that documents
all of its federal and non-federal expenditures for the completed
period. The recipient seeking an adjustment to its MOE for that period
must provide the rationale and the documentation necessary to enable
EPA to make a determination that a nonselective reduction has occurred.
In order to expedite that determination, the recipient must provide
details of the budget action and the comparative fiscal impacts on all
the jurisdiction's executive branch agencies, the recipient agency
itself, and the agency's air program. The recipient should identify any
executive branch agencies or programs that should be excepted from
comparison and explain why. The recipient must provide evidence that
the air program is not being singled out for a reduction or being
disproportionately reduced. Documentation in two key areas will be
needed: Budget data specific to the recipient's air program, and
comparative budget data between the recipient's air program, the agency
containing the air program, and the other executive branch agencies.
EPA may also request information from the recipient about how impacts
on its program operations will affect its ability to meet its CAA
obligations and requirements; and documentation which explains the
cause of the reduction, such as legislative changes or the issuance of
a new executive order.
    In FY2013, EPA awarded the SCAQMD $5,135,895, which represented
approximately 5% of the SCAQMD budget. In FY-2014, EPA intends to award
the SCAQMD an estimate of $5,039,863, which represents approximately 5%
of the SCAQMD budget.
    SCAQMD's final Federal Financial Report for FY-2012 indicated that
SCAQMD's maintenance of effort (MOE) level was 108,291,832. SCAQMD's
final Federal Financial Report for FY-2013 indicates that SCAQMD's
maintenance of effort (MOE) level is at $105,096,053.
    The projected MOE is not sufficient to meet the MOE requirements
under the CAA section 105 because it is not equal to or greater than
the MOE for the previous fiscal year. In order for the SCAQMD to be
eligible to receive its FY2014 CAA section 105 grant, EPA must make a
determination, after notice and an opportunity for a public hearing,
that the reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-selective
reduction in the expenditures in the programs of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District. The shortfall stems from a decline of 8.9%
in stationary sources revenue from FY2008-09 to FY2012-13, as reflected
in the table below:

                                    Comparison of Stationary Source Revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Description                    Actual FY 2008-09      Actual FY 2012-13          Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Source Revenues.................           $91,472,243            $83,307,359           ($8,164,884)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCAQMD is a single-purpose agency whose primary source of
funding is emission fee revenue. It is the ``unit of government for
section 105 (c)(2) purposes.''
    The decline in stationary source revenues would have been even more
pronounced had it not been for the SCAQMD Governing Board-adopted fee
increases totaling 7.9% over the last four years. The net loss of
stationary revenues has given SCAQMD no choice but to reduce its budget
and find less costly ways to meet its mandates. Over the past several
years, actions were undertaken by SCAQMD to balance its budget by
reducing overall expenditures, including deleting or not funding vacant
positions, implementing a hiring freeze, enacting pension reform,
reducing services and supplies expenditures, and utilizing reserves.
    Since FY2009-10, SCAQMD has supplemented revenues with $27.4
million in reserves to balance the budget and meet program
requirements.
    In addition to the conditions described above, an increase in non-
recurrent capital expenditures has also contributed to the decrease in
the FY13 MOE level.
    Based on: (1) SCAQMD's inability to levy taxes, (2) regulated and
voluntary emissions reductions, (3) the general economic downturn, (4)
voter approval of Proposition 26, (5) an overall decline in stationary
source revenue, (6) expenditure cuts, (7) use of financial reserves to
balance the budget, and (8) an increase in non-recurrent capital
expenditures, the request for a reset of SCAQMD's MOE meets the
criteria for a non-selective reduction determination.
    Although SCAQMD receives less than 5 percent of its support from
the section 105 grant, the loss of that funding would seriously impact
SCAQMD's ability to carry out its clean air program. The revenue
generated from Stationary Sources over the last 10 years is detailed
below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Stationary
                          Year                                sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003....................................................      62,835,710
2004....................................................      61,461,482

2005....................................................      64,613,635
2006....................................................      68,483,189
2007....................................................      75,200,253
2008....................................................      82,800,004
2009....................................................      91,472,243
2010....................................................      81,097,647
2011....................................................      78,787,371
2012....................................................      79,815,562
2013....................................................      83,307,359
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCAQMD's MOE reduction resulted from a loss of revenues due to
circumstances beyond its control. EPA proposes to determine that the
SCAQMD lowering the FY2013 MOE level to $105,096,053 meets the CAA
section 105(c) (2) criteria as resulting from a non-selective reduction
of expenditures.
    This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an
opportunity for public hearing as required by the Clean Air Act. All
written comments received by April 17, 2014 on this proposal will be
considered. EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only if
a written request for such is received by EPA at the address above by
April 17, 2014. If no written request for a hearing is received, EPA
will proceed to the final determination. While notice of the final
determination will not be published in the Federal Register, copies of
the determination can be obtained by sending a written request to Gary
Lance at the above address.

    Dated: March 5, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-05906 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23663-23664]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15000-003]

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 15000-003.
    c. Date filed: June 30, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (Erie).
    e. Name of Project: Franklin Falls Hydroelectric Project (Franklin
Falls Project or project).
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Saranac River,
in the town of St. Armand in Essex County and the town of Franklin in
Franklin County, New York. The project does not occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven Murphy, Director, U.S. Licensing, Erie
Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 33 West 1st Street South, Fulton, New York
13069; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; and Patrick Storms, Director of
Operations, Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 800 Starbuck Avenue, Suite
201, Watertown, New York 13601; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Claire Rozdilski,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. All
filings must clearly identify the project name and docket number on the
first page: Franklin Falls Hydroelectric Project (P-15000-003).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted but is not ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The Franklin Falls Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) a 148-foot-long, 45-foot-high concrete overflow-type
dam at a crest elevation of 1,462.88 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) with 2-foot-high flashboards; (2) a reservoir
with a surface area of 479 acres and a gross storage capacity of 5,580
acre-feet at pool elevation 1,464.88 feet NGVD 29; (3) an integrated
28-foot-long gated intake structure located on the dam's right (south)
side; (4) a 10.5-foot-diameter, 300-foot-long steel pipeline; (5) a 43-
foot-high surge tank with a 20-foot-diameter steel shaft; (6) two 10-
foot-diameter, 38-foot-long steel penstocks; (7) a powerhouse
containing two generating units having a total rated capacity of 2.12
megawatts; (8) 85-foot-long, 2.3-kilovolt (kV) generator leads; (9) a
2.3/46-kV step-up transformer bank; (10) a 300-foot-long, 46-kV
transmission line; (11) a tailrace; and (12) appurtenant facilities.
    The Franklin Falls Project operates in a modified run-of-river
mode. If inflow exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the units, the
project operates continuously at full load. When the inflow is less
than the hydraulic capacity of the project, the project is operated in
a run-of-river mode utilizing pondage as needed for daily flow
regulation and to suit power requirements of the New York Independent
System Operator. The project has an average annual generation of 10,349
megawatt-hours.
    Erie does not propose changes to project facilities or operations.
Erie proposes to continue to: (1) provide a minimum base flow of 245
cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less, from March 1
through June 1 from the Franklin Falls powerhouse; and from June 2 to
March 1 reservoir inflow is released from the powerhouse, as needed for
the downstream Saranac Project to maintain a minimum base flow of 165
cfs, or inflow, whichever is less; (2) limit the maximum total drawdown
of the Franklin Falls impoundment to 2 feet below the top of the
flashboards, or 1 foot below the spillway crest when flashboards are
not in use (Erie annually installs flashboards at Franklin Falls by the
first week of June, unless flow conditions warrant otherwise); (3)
provide a minimum flow to the bypassed reach of 125 cfs or inflow,
whichever is less, from March 31 through May 31 for the protection of
walleye spawning and incubation (the release schedule may be modified
on a year-to-year basis based on water temperatures and presence/
absence of walleye, upon mutual agreement between the licensee and the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and (4)
operate and maintain the cartop boat launch and canoe portage.
    Erie proposes to modify the project boundary by removing
approximately 1.12 acres along the northern shoreline, which are not
needed for project operations, and adding approximately 0.14 acre to
include the project's existing hand-carry boat launch. In addition,
Erie proposes to implement its proposed bald eagle management plan,
invasive species management plan, and impoundment drawdown plan.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested individuals an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to
the Commission's Public Access Room due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects.

For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.
    o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments May 2023
Scoping Document 1 comments due June 2023
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary) July 2023
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis July 2023

    Dated: April 11, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08134 Filed 4-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P