E. Additional Annual Compliance Demonstration
	In addition to continuous compliance with the LDSN-DRF as required by the sections IV.A-D, the following annual compliance demonstration actions are required for the LDSN-DRF system located in the Meta-Xylene and Mid-Crude process units:
	(a) Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 must be conducted in each process unit equipped with the LDSN-DRF according to the following requirements:
	(1) The first survey must be conducted within 12 calendar months of implementation of the AMEL in a given unit. Subsequent surveys must be conducted no sooner than 10 calendar months and no later than 12 calendar months after the preceding survey.
	(2) Identify the valves to be monitored as described below. Monitor the valves located in these verification zones as described in IV.E(a)(2)(i) through (v) or IV.E(a)(2)(vi) using Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 as specified in section 60.485a(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa, with the exception that the high scale calibration gas must be approximately 20,000 ppm.
	(i) Determine the total number of valves located in the individual process unit. The minimum number of valves monitored must equal 20 percent of the total population of valves in the process unit.
	(ii) Identify each verification zone on a plot plan. The verification zone is the area between the radii that are 45 and 50 feet from each individual sensor. Determine the total number of valves that occur in only one sensor verification zone (i.e., verification zones that have no overlap with other verification zones). If the number of valves that occur in only one sensor verification zone is greater than the minimum number of valves that must be monitored, monitor a random selection of these valves according to IV.E(a)(2)(v).
      (iii) If the number of valves that occur in only one sensor verification zone is less than the minimum number of valves that must be monitored, determine the total number of valves that occur in all verification zones, including those that overlap. If the total number of valves in all verification zones is greater than the minimum number of valves that must be monitored, monitor all the valves that occur in only one sensor verification zone. Additionally, monitor a random selection of valves, chosen in accordance with IV.E(a)(2)(v), that appear in verification zones that overlap until the 20 percent minimum is achieved.
      (iv) If the number of valves in all verification zones is less than 20 percent of the total population, then monitor all of the valves in all verification zones. Additionally, monitor a random sample of additional valves within the LDSN but outside of the verification zones, chosen in accordance with IV.E (a)(2)(v), until the 20 percent minimum is achieved.
      (v) Random sampling of valves. To determine the random selection of valves to monitor, determine the population of valves that must be randomly sampled as determined in IV.E(a)(2)(ii), (iii), or (iv) (i.e., 20 percent of the total valve population or 20 percent of the total valve population minus the number of valves in the verification zones). Divide the population of valves by the number of valves that must be sampled and round to the nearest integer to establish the sampling interval. Using the valve IDs sequentially, monitor valves at this sequential interval (e.g., every 5 valves). Alternatively, use the valve IDs and a random number generator to determine the valves to monitor. Each survey conducted under IV.E(a)(1) must start on a different valve ID such that the same population of valves is not monitored in each survey.
      (vi) In lieu of implementing IV.E.(a)(2)(i) through (v), FHR may elect to monitor 50% of the total number of light liquid and gas vapor (LL/ GV) valves that occur within the expected LDSN coverage area the first year. This shall be done by monitoring every other valve in the given tag range (e.g., all odd numbered valves) such that nominally 50% of the valves have been monitored. In the following year, the other 50% of the valves (e.g., all even numbered valves) that were not monitored in the first year shall be monitored. Each subsequent survey must rotate between the two sets of valves such that the same population of valves is not monitored during two consecutive surveys.
      (3) Monitor each pump located in the process unit using Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 as specified in section 60.485a(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa.
	(4) For purposes of this monitoring, a leak is identified as an instrument reading above the leak definitions in Table 2 of this AMEL. All identified leaks must be repaired or placed on DOR within 15 calendar days of detection, with a first attempt completed within five calendar days of detection.
	(5) Once annual monitoring survey conducted in IV.E(a)(4) is complete, any leaks identified greater than 3,000 ppm shall be plotted on a plot plan of the unit along with all active PSLs. If any LDAR applicable components are identified with an instrument reading above 18,000 ppm, that are not components in an active PSL or components that have been identified as leakers or previously placed on delay of repair, then the leaker is a Non-Compliant Leaker (NC leaker), and a Zone of Incomplete Coverage (ZIC) shall be defined as the area with a 15-foot radius horizontally and vertically around the leaking component. Furthermore, any LDAR applicable components identified with an instrument reading above 3,000 ppm and located within  18 feet of any sensor node, are also defined as NC leakers and a ZIC shall be defined as the area with a 15-foot radius horizontally and vertically around the leaking component.

	(i) EPA or its delegated authority may conduct audits of the LDSN at any time, using the same approach to determine NC leakers using Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60.
      (ii) For each NC leaker found during the annual verification monitoring performed by FHR, and/or any inspection from EPA or its delegated authority conducted within any 2 calendar-week period, the requirements in paragraphs IV.E.(a)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) apply. If two or more NC leakers are found during such monitoring, paragraphs (C) and (D) also apply.
      (A) Monitoring shall be conducted for all LL/GV valves and pumps in the ZIC that were not already monitored during the current annual verification monitoring, Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60. The leak definitions in Table 2 shall be used to determine if a leak is detected. Any identified leaks shall be repaired or placed on DOR per IV.E.(a)(4). All NC leakers shall be considered violations of the AMEL and reported as such. The period of noncompliance shall end when repairs are made and verified or placed on DOR and all M21 monitoring has been completed for LL/GV valves and pumps in the ZIC.
      (B) Until the actions in IV.E.(a)(5)(ii)(A) are completed, quarterly monitoring of LL/GV valves and pumps is required in the ZIC using Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60.
      (C) Two or more NC leaks detected could be indicative of a system or program defect. The facility shall conduct a root cause analysis (RCA) to determine the cause of the defect and to determine appropriate corrective action. The RCA shall begin within 5 days and be completed no later than 45 days after completion of the survey in IV.E.(a)(4). If corrective actions will take longer than 45 days to complete, then a corrective action plan shall be submitted to EPA and be reported as a Title V deviation until corrective actions are completed.
      (D) If the corrective actions include revisions to the sensor network, FHR must submit a plan within 15 days of the completion of the RCA in IV.E.(a)(5)(ii)(C), to revise the sensor network to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Revisions to the sensor network must include the addition of new sensors to reduce the detection radius of each sensor, location changes of any previously deployed sensors, and/or the deployment of a different sensor type.

	(b) FHR may stop conducting the additional annual compliance demonstration required in IV.E(a) if no leaks above 18,000 ppm are identified with Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 over a period of 2 consecutive calendar years.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79249-79250]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31464; Amdt. No. 4040]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective December 27, 2022. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of December 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending
the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP
is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National
Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is
incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14
CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the
need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction
on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the
advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication
of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form
documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with
their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the
airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff

Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for Part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria
contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures
(TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 9, 2022.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part
97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates
specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AIRAC date              State              City               Airport         FDC No.      FDC date                     Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26-Jan-23...............  MA              Southbridge........  Southbridge Muni..       2/5388     11/21/22  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-C.
26-Jan-23...............  IA              Council Bluffs.....  Council Bluffs           2/6420     11/18/22  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1.
                                                                Muni.
26-Jan-23...............  FL              New Smyrna Beach...  New Smyrna Beach         2/6973     11/29/22  RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig-B.
                                                                Muni.
26-Jan-23...............  FL              New Smyrna Beach...  New Smyrna Beach         2/6974     11/29/22  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-B.
                                                                Muni.
26-Jan-23...............  FL              New Smyrna Beach...  New Smyrna Beach         2/6975     11/29/22  RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-B.
                                                                Muni.
26-Jan-23...............  FL              New Smyrna Beach...  New Smyrna Beach         2/6976     11/29/22  RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig-B.
                                                                Muni.
26-Jan-23...............  NE              Wahoo..............  Wahoo Muni........       2/8111     11/30/22  RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig.
26-Jan-23...............  PA              Waynesburg.........  Greene County.....       2/8243     11/28/22  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-B.
26-Jan-23...............  PA              Waynesburg.........  Greene County.....       2/8244     11/28/22  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 9, Amdt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-28111 Filed 12-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


those expenses with Industry Members will continue to incentivize the
Participants to proceed with Plan implementation? Why or why not?
Please explain in detail.
    37. Do you agree with the Commission's assessment of the
transparency of Plan implementation? Why or why not? Please explain in
detail.
    38. Do you agree with the Commission's assessment of the status of
Plan implementation? Why or why not? Please explain in detail.
    39. The Commission requests that commenters provide relevant data
and information to assist us in analyzing the economic consequences of
the proposed amendments. In particular, the Commission requests data
and information regarding the costs incurred by Industry Members
because of uncertainty surrounding CAT implementation.
    40. Do you agree with the Commission's assessment of the benefits
of the proposed amendments? Why or why not? Please explain in detail.
    41. Do you believe that the proposed amendments increase the
likelihood that OATS will be retired by December 31, 2021? Do you
believe that the amendments are likely to compress the period of
duplicative reporting by Industry Members? Why or why not? Please
explain in detail.
    42. Do you believe the proposed amendments will decrease
uncertainty for Industry Members regarding the timing and requirements
of Plan implementation? Why or why not? Please explain in detail.
    43. Do you believe this reduction in uncertainty will reduce costs
of Plan Implementation by Industry Members? Why or why not? Please
explain in detail.
    44. Do the Participants have economic disincentives to Plan
implementation that the Commission has not recognized? What are they?
Please describe in detail.
    45. Are there other economic incentives the Commission could
propose to incentivize the Participants to implement the CAT NMS Plan
expeditiously and efficiently? Please describe them in detail.
    46. Do you agree with the Commission's analysis of the direct costs
of the proposed amendments? Why or why not?
    47. Do commenters agree that Participants' costs related to
approval of the Implementation Plan and Quarterly Progress Reports are
likely to have economies of scale, whereby the representatives of
Participants that are members of exchange groups may spend less time
per exchange on this task, while representatives of Participants that
are not part of an exchange group may require more time to review and
vote on the Implementation Plan and/or Quarterly Progress Reports, and
prepare and publish on each of the Participant websites or collectively
on the CAT NMS Plan website any statements identifying Participants
that did not vote to approve and explaining why? Why or why not?
    48. Do commenters agree with the Commission's estimate for hourly
costs for Operating Committee members performing activities necessary
for approval by a Supermajority Vote under the amendments? If not,
please provide alternate estimates if possible.
    49. Do commenters agree with the Commission's estimate for hourly
costs associated with the President, CEO or equivalently situated
senior officer of each Participant? If not, please provide alternative
estimates of the hourly costs for the President, CEO or equivalently
situated senior officer of each Participant to consult as needed with
the Participant's Operating Committee member.
    50. Please provide estimates of the time required for a Participant
and publish a statement identifying itself and explaining why it did
not vote to approve the Implementation Plan or Quarterly Report. Also,
please identify who (i.e. General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer or
other executive) would be involved in preparing such a statement.
    51. Please comment on the Commission's estimate of the maximum cost
of RFRRs to the Participants. Are there alternative methodologies to
estimate these costs? Please describe and provide detailed analysis if
possible.
    52. Do you agree with the Commission's analysis of the indirect
costs of the proposed amendments? Why or why not?
    53. Are the proposed amendments likely to cause an inefficient
acceleration as described above of Plan implementation as described
above? Why or why not?
    54. Do you believe the proposed amendments are likely to improve
the

efficiency of Plan implementation? Why or why not?
    55. Do you believe the proposed amendments' incentive structure
could potentially reduce the efficiency of Plan implementation by
incentivizing Participants to delay certain later-Period implementation
activities if Participants believe there is a significant risk of
missing a Financial Accountability Milestone date in an earlier Period?
Why or why not? Please describe how in detail.
    56. The Commission requests comment on all aspects of this analysis
and, in particular, on whether the Proposed Amendments would place a
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Exchange Act, as well as the effect of the proposal
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
    57. Do you agree with the Commission's assessment of the current
state of competition in the market for trading services? Why or why
not?
    58. Do you agree with the Commission's assessment of the current
state of competition in the market for NMS stock listings? Why or why
not?
    59. Do you believe that in the event that RFRRs are triggered, one
or more exchanges might exit the market for trading services? Please
explain in detail.
    60. If one or more exchanges were to exit the market for trading
services, would competition in this market suffer? Why or why not? Are
there exchanges that might leave this market that have business models
that could not be copied by an existing competitor or new entrant?
Would such business models be likely to be copied by an existing
competitor or new entrant? Why or why not? Please explain in detail.
    61. Do you believe that some Participants might be motivated to
trigger RFRRs to financially distress competitors? Why or why not?
Please explain in detail.
    62. Do you believe the proposed amendments will have effects on
capital formation that the Commission has not recognized? Please
explain in detail.
    63. Do you agree that the proposed amendments may improve capital
formation by accelerating the investor protection benefits anticipated
by the CAT Approval Order? Why or why not?
    64. Would an alternative approach that used relative Financial
Accountability Milestone dates rather than fixed Financial
Accountability Milestone dates better incentivize the Participants to
implement the CAT NMS Plan expeditiously and efficiently? Why or why
not? Would such an approach have benefits or costs that the Commission
has not recognized? Please explain in detail.
    65. Are there alternative Financial Accountability Milestone dates
that the Commission should use? What economic benefits and costs would
those alternative dates have? Please describe in detail.
    66. The Commission requests comment on alternative incentive
structures. Is the proposed schedule for reducing the fee recovery
levels by 25% for each period of up to 90 days that the Participants
miss implementation Financial Accountability Milestone dates adequate
to incentivize the Participants to implement CAT expeditiously and
efficiently? Is there some other RFRR level that is more appropriate?
Should the time period between reductions in RFRR levels be shorter or
longer than 90 days? Please explain.

V. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''),\254\ the Commission requests comment on the
potential effect of this proposal on the United States economy on an
annual basis. The Commission also requests comment on any potential
increases in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries,
and any potential effect on competition, investment, or innovation.
Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual
support for their views, to the extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C. and as a note
to 5 U.S.C. 601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \255\ requires Federal
agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules
on small entities. Section 603(a) \256\ of the Administrative Procedure
Act,\257\ as amended by the RFA, generally requires the Commission to
undertake a regulatory flexibility analysis of all proposed rules, or
proposed rule amendments, to determine the impact of such rulemaking on
``small entities.'' \258\ Section 605(b) of the RFA states that this
requirement shall not apply ``to any proposed or final rule if the head
of the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' \259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \256\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \257\ 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    \258\ The Commission has adopted definitions for the term
``small entity'' for purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance
with the RFA. Those definitions, as relevant to this proposed
rulemaking, are set forth in 17 CFR 240.0-10. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 18451 (January 28, 1982), 47 FR 5215
(February 4, 1982) (File No. AS-305).
    \259\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule amendments would only impose requirements on
national securities exchanges registered with the Commission under
Section 6 of the Exchange Act and FINRA. With respect to the national
securities exchanges, the Commission's definition of a small entity is
an exchange that has been exempt from the reporting requirements of
Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, and is not affiliated with any person
(other than a natural person) that is not a small business or small
organization.\260\ None of the national securities exchanges registered
under Section 6 of the Exchange Act that would be subject to the
proposed rule are ``small entities'' for purposes of the RFA. In
addition, FINRA is not a ``small entity.'' \261\ For these reasons, the
proposed rule will not apply to any ``small entities.'' Therefore, for
the purposes of the RFA, the Commission certifies that the proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(e).
    \261\ See 13 CFR 121.201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests comment regarding this certification. In
particular, the Commission solicits comment on the following:
    67. Do commenters agree with the Commission's certification that
the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities? If not, please describe the
nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to
illustrate the extent of the impact.

VII. Statutory Authority and Text of the Proposed Amendments to the CAT
NMS Plan

    Pursuant to the Exchange Act and, particularly, Sections 2, 3(b),
5, 6, 11A, 15, 15A, 17(a) and (b), 19, and 23(a) thereof, 15 U.S.C.
78b, 78c(b), 78e, 78f, 78k-1, 78o, 78o-3, 78q(a) and (b), 78s, 78w(a),
and pursuant to Rule 608(a)(2) and (b)(2),\262\ the Commission proposes

to amend the CAT NMS Plan in the manner set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ 17 CFR 242.608(a)(2) and (b)(2). These provisions enable
the Commission to propose amendments to any effective NMS Plan by
``publishing the text thereof, together with a statement of the
purpose of such amendment,'' and providing ``interested persons an
opportunity to submit written comments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additions are underlined; deletions are [bracketed].
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE19.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE19.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE19.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE19.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE19.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE19.017

    By the Commission.

    Dated: September 9, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19852 Filed 9-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-C