[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15372-15376]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05983]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71716; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Customer Rebate Program and Multiply Listed Options

March 13, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 5, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend the Customer Rebate Program in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule; and (ii) amend Section II of the
Pricing Schedule entitled ``Multiply Listed Options Fees.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and
indexes that are multiply listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend certain Customer Rebate tier
percentage thresholds related to the ``Customer Rebate Program,'' in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule to provide members a greater
opportunity to receive Customer rebates. The Exchange also proposes to
amend Section II of the Pricing Schedule to amend certain Non-Penny
Pilot Options Transaction Charges in Multiply Listed Options in order
to allow the Exchange to fund additional incentives in connection with
the Customer Rebate Program in Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
Customer Rebate Program
    Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate Program consisting of
five tiers that pays Customer rebates on two Categories, A \4\ and
B,\5\ of transactions.\6\ A Phlx member qualifies for a certain rebate
tier based on the percentage of total national customer volume in
multiply-listed options that it transacts monthly on Phlx. The Exchange
calculates Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options by totaling
electronically-delivered and executed volume, except volume associated
with electronic Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Orders,\7\ as
defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o).\8\ The Exchange pays the following
rebates: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Category A rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in
Section II symbols. Rebates are paid on Customer PIXL Orders in
Section II symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order
interest. In the instance where member organizations qualify for
Tier 3 or higher in the Customer Rebate Program, Customer PIXL
Orders that execute against a PIXL Initiating Order are paid a
rebate of $0.14 per contract.
    \5\ Category B rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II. Rebates are paid
on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Section II symbols that execute
against non-Initiating Order interest. In the instance where member
organizations qualify for Tier 3 or higher in the Customer Rebate
Program, Customer Complex PIXL Orders that execute against a Complex
PIXL Initiating Order will be paid a rebate of $0.17 per contract.
    \6\ See Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
    \7\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least
1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the National Best Bid and Offer and be rejected if a Customer order
is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. A QCC Order shall
only be submitted electronically from off the floor to the PHLX XL
II System. See Rule 1080(o). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64249 (April 7, 2011), 76 FR 20773 (April 13, 2011) (SR-
Phlx-2011-47) (a rule change to establish a QCC Order to facilitate
the execution of stock/option Qualified Contingent Trades (``QCTs'')
that satisfy the requirements of the trade through exemption in
connection with Rule 611(d) of the Regulation NMS).
    \8\ Members and member organizations under common ownership may
aggregate their Customer volume for purposes of calculating the
Customer Rebate Tiers and receiving rebates. Common ownership means
members or member organizations under 75% common ownership or
control.
    \9\ SPY is included in the calculation of Customer volume in
Multiply Listed Options that are electronically-delivered and
executed for purposes of the Customer Rebate Program, however, the
rebates do not apply to electronic executions in SPY.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Percentage thresholds of national
                                             customer volume in multiply- listed
           Customer rebate tiers               equity and ETF options classes,      Category A      Category B
                                               excluding SPY options (Monthly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1.....................................  0.00%-0.45%........................           $0.00           $0.00
Tier 2.....................................  Above 0.45%-1.00%..................           $0.11           $0.17
Tier 3.....................................  Above 1.00%-1.60%..................           $0.12           $0.17
Tier 4.....................................  Above 1.60%-2.50%..................           $0.16           $0.19
Tier 5.....................................  Above 2.50%........................           $0.17           $0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 1 of the Customer Rebate
Program to increase the percentage threshold from 0.00%-0.45% to 0.00%-
0.60%. The Exchange would continue to not pay a rebate for Tier 1. The
Exchange increasing the percentage threshold in Tier 1 in order to
encourage market participants to direct a greater number

of Customer orders to the Exchange to qualify for the rebate.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 2 of the Customer Rebate
Program to increase the percentage threshold from above 0.45%-1.00% to
above 0.60%-1.10%. The Exchange is increasing the percentage threshold
in Tier 2 in order to encourage market participants to direct a greater
number of Customer orders to the Exchange to qualify for the rebate.
The Exchange also proposes to decrease the Tier 2 Category A rebate
from $0.11 to $0.10 per contract. The Category B rebate for Tier 2 will
remain at $0.17 per contract. The Exchange proposes to offer a $0.02
per contract rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 rebate to a
Specialist or Market Maker or its member or member organization
affiliate under Common Ownership,\10\ provided the Specialist or Market
Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap \11\ as defined in
Section II (``$0.02 Rebate''). The Exchange currently offers this $0.02
Rebate in connection with Tier 3 rebates and is proposing to extend
this additional rebate in connection with qualifying for Tier 2
rebates. The additional $0.02 Rebate would increase the Category A Tier
2 rebate from $0.10 to $0.12 per contract. The additional $0.02 Rebate
would increase the Category B Tier 2 rebate from $0.17 to $0.19 per
contract. The Exchange believes that the rebate will incentivize
Customer orders to be directed to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``Common Ownership'' means members or member
organizations under 75% common ownership or control.
    \11\ Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly
Market Maker Cap'' of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option
Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in
Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e));
and (iii) fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL
Order or specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading
activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker member
organizations is aggregated in calculating the Monthly Market Maker
Cap if there is Common Ownership between the member organizations.
All dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion,
jelly roll and box spread strategy executions (as defined in this
Section II) are excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap. In
addition, Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-
side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and
(ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap are assessed a $0.17
per contract fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 3 of the Customer Rebate
Program to increase the percentage threshold from above 1.00%-1.60% to
above 1.10%-1.60%. The Exchange would continue to pay a Category A
rebate of $0.12 per contract and a Category B rebate of $0.17 per
contract. The Exchange is increasing the percentage threshold in Tier 3
to encourage market participants to direct a greater number of Customer
orders to the Exchange to qualify for the rebate.
    The Exchange is not proposing to amend Tiers 4 or 5 of the Customer
Rebate Program.
Section II--Multiply Listed Options Fees Options Transaction Charges
    The Exchange currently assesses Professionals,\12\ Broker-Dealers
\13\ and Firms \14\ an Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot
Options of $0.60 per contract with respect to electronic orders.
Professionals are assessed a reduced fee of $0.30 per contract with
respect to electronic Complex Orders.\15\ The Exchange is proposing to
increase Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm Options Transaction
Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.60 to $0.70 per contract
with respect to electronic orders. Professionals will continue to be
offered the reduced fee of $0.30 per contract with respect to
electronic Complex Orders. Despite these increases, the Exchange
believes that these fees remain competitive with other options
exchanges \16\ and permit the Exchange to incentivize its market
participants by offering additional rebate incentives in Section B of
the Pricing Schedule.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \13\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \14\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \15\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of
an underlying stock or exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') coupled with
the purchase or sale of options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080,
Commentary .08(a)(i).
    \16\ See The NASDAQ Options Market LLC's (``NOM'') Rules at
Chapter XV, Section 2 and BATS Exchange, Inc.'s (``BATS'') Fee
Schedule. NOM assesses an $0.89 transaction fee to remove liquidity
in Non-Penny Pilot Options to Professionals, Firms and Broker-
Dealers. BATS assesses an $0.89 charge per contract for a
Professional or Firm that removes liquidity from the BATS Options
order book.
    \17\ The Exchange is offering an additional rebate in connection
with qualifying for Tier 2 rebates to encourage additional Customer
order flow, as described in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to offer Professionals, Broker-
Dealers and Firms the opportunity to reduce the proposed electronic
Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.70 to
$0.60 per contract if the member or member organization under Common
Ownership with another member or member organization qualifies, in a
given month, for Customer Rebate Tiers 2, 3, 4, or 5 in Section B of
the Pricing Schedule. With respect to Professionals, electronic Complex
Orders will continue to be assessed $0.30 per contract, regardless of
any Customer Rebate qualification. The Exchange believes that this
incentive will encourage market participants to transact a greater
number of electronic Customer orders to obtain the lower fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\18\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system that the Exchange operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 1 of the Customer Rebate
Program to increase the percentage threshold from 0.00%-0.45% to 0.00%-
0.60% is reasonable because the Exchange recently lowered certain
Customer Rebate Tier percentage thresholds and even adopted a new
tier.\20\ The Exchange does not believe that those amendments to lower
certain percentage thresholds resulted in a greater amount of Customer
liquidity to the market and is now proposing to increase those
percentage thresholds. With this proposal, members that currently
qualify for a non-paying Tier 1 rebate may qualify for a Tier 2 rebate
by transacting greater than 0.60% of national customer volume in
multiply listed equity and ETF options (excluding SPY). The Exchange
desires to increase the Tier 1 percentage thresholds to encourage
market participants to direct a greater amount of Customer orders to
Phlx to obtain a Tier 2 or higher rebate. Members qualifying for Tier 1
will not receive a rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71257 (January 8,
2014), 79 FR 2489 (January 14, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 1 of the Customer Rebate
Program

to increase the percentage threshold from 0.00%-0.45% to 0.00%-0.60% is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will be applied to
all market participants in a uniform matter. Any market participant is
eligible to receive the rebate provided they transact a qualifying
amount of electronic Customer volume.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 2 of the Customer Rebate
Program to increase the percentage threshold from above 0.45%-1.00% to
above 0.60%-1.10% is reasonable because the Exchange recently lowered
certain Customer Rebate Tier percentage thresholds and even adopted a
new tier.\21\ The Exchange does not believe that those amendments to
lower certain percentage thresholds resulted in a greater amount of
Customer liquidity to the market and is now proposing to increase those
percentage thresholds. With this proposal, members that currently
qualify for a Tier 2 would need to increase the amount of Customer
volume by transacting greater than 0.60% of national customer volume in
multiply listed equity and ETF options (excluding SPY). The Exchange is
also lowering the Category A Tier 2 rebate from $0.11 to $0.10 per
contract, but is also offering the opportunity to earn an additional
$0.02 Rebate, when qualifying for Tier 2 rebates, as described in this
proposal. The Exchange believes that despite the increased volume
required to qualify for a Tier 2 rebate and the reduced Tier 2 Category
A rebate, market participants will continue to be encouraged to direct
electronic Customer liquidity to Phlx to earn rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 19 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 2 of the Customer Rebate
Program to increase the percentage threshold from above 0.45%-1.00% to
above 0.60%-1.10% is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it will be applied to all market participants in a uniform matter. Any
market participant is eligible to receive the rebate, provided they
transact a qualifying amount of electronic Customer volume. In
addition, the Exchange's proposal to lower the Category A Tier 2 rebate
from $0.11 to $0.10 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will be applied to all market participants in
a uniform matter.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pay a $0.02 Rebate in
addition to Tier 2 rebates to a Specialist or Market Maker, or its
affiliate under Common Ownership, provided the Specialist or Market
Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap, is reasonable because
the Exchange desires to encourage market participants to transact a
greater number of Customer orders on the Exchange to receive the
enhanced rebate. Today, the Exchange offers this enhanced rebate to
Specialists and Market Makers that qualify for a Tier 3 rebate. The
Exchange proposes to expand this offer to Tier 2 rebates to further
encourage these market participants to direct Customer order flow to
the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pay a $0.02 Rebate in
addition to the applicable Tier 2 rebate to a Specialist or Market
Maker, or its affiliate under Common Ownership, provided the Specialist
or Market Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap, is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because unlike other market
participants, Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting
obligations \22\ to the market that do not apply to Customers,
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. Specialists and Market Makers
serve an important role on the Exchange with regard to order
interaction and they provide liquidity in the marketplace.
Additionally, Specialists and Market Makers incur costs unlike other
market participants including, but not limited to, PFOF and other costs
associated with market making activities,\23\ which results in a higher
average cost per execution as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and
Professionals. The proposed differentiation as between Specialists and
Market Makers as compared to other market participants recognizes the
differing contributions made to the trading environment on the Exchange
by these market participants. The Exchange is continuing to offer the
Tier 2 rebate to all market participants. Customer liquidity benefits
all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attract Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
    \23\ Specialists and Market Makers pay for certain data feeds
including the SQF Port Fee. SQF Port Fees are listed in the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section VII. SQF is an interface that
allows Specialists and Market Makers to connect and send quotes into
Phlx XL and assists them in responding to auctions and providing
liquidity to the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 3 of the Customer Rebate
Program to increase the percentage threshold from above 1.00%-1.60% to
above 1.10%-1.60% is reasonable because the Exchange recently lowered
certain Customer Rebate Tier percentage thresholds and even adopted a
new tier.\24\ The Exchange does not believe that those amendments to
lower certain percentage thresholds resulted in a greater amount of
Customer liquidity to the market and is now proposing to increase those
percentage thresholds. With this proposal, members that currently
qualify for a Tier 3 rebate would need to increase the amount of
Customer volume by transacting greater than 1.10% of national customer
volume in multiply listed equity and ETF options (excluding SPY) to
continue to receive a Tier 3 rebate. The Exchange believes that despite
the increased Customer volume required to qualify for Tier 3 rebate,
market participants will continue to be encouraged to direct electronic
Customer liquidity to Phlx to earn rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See note 19 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 3 of the Customer Rebate
Program to increase the percentage threshold from above 1.00%-1.60% to
above 1.10%-1.60% is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it will be applied to all market participants in a uniform matter. Any
market participant is eligible to receive the rebate provided they
transact a qualifying amount of electronic Customer volume.
Section II--Multiply Listed Options Fees Options Transaction Charges
    The Exchange's proposal to increase electronic Professional,
Broker-Dealer and Firm Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot
Options from $0.60 to $0.70 per contract is reasonable because the
Exchange's fees will remain competitive with fees at other options
markets,\25\ despite the fee increase, and will allow the Exchange to
incentivize market participants by offering additional rebate
incentives in Section B of the Pricing Schedule.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See note 16.
    \26\ The Exchange is offering an additional $0.02 Rebate in
connection with Tier 2 to further incentivize market participants to
direct Customer orders to the Exchange. The $0.02 Rebate will be
paid to Exchange member organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase electronic Professional,
Broker-Dealer and Firm Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot
Options from $0.60 to $0.70 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will assess Professionals, Broker-
Dealers and Firms the same electronic Options Transaction Charge

in Non-Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange does not assess Customers an
electronic Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options
because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the
benefit of all market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Specialists and Market Makers are assessed lower
electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options as
compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms because they have
obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally
do not apply to other market participants.\27\ They have obligations to
make continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with a course of dealings. The proposed differentiation as
between Customers, Specialists and Market Makers and other market
participants recognizes the differing contributions made to the
liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to offer Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Firms the opportunity to reduce the proposed electronic Options
Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.70 to $0.60 per
contract, if the member or member organization under Common Ownership
with another member or member organization qualifies, in a given month,
for Customer Rebate Tiers 2, 3, 4, or 5 in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule, is reasonable because the Exchange is offering these market
participants an opportunity to lower the proposed fees by transacting a
certain amount of Customer orders. The Exchange believes that this
incentive will encourage market participants to transact a greater
number of electronic Non-Penny Pilot Options Customer orders to obtain
the lower fees. The Exchange would continue to assess Professionals a
$0.30 per contract Options Transaction Charge for electronic Complex
Orders, regardless of any Customer Rebate qualification. Today, a
Professional is assessed a $0.30 per contract electronic Options
Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options when transacting Complex
Orders as compared to a $0.60 per contract electronic Options
Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options when transacting Simple
Orders. The reduced fee assessed to Professionals is comparable with
electronic Professional fees at other options exchanges.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
assesses a Professional and Voluntary Professional a $0.30 per
contract electronic fee in Penny and Non-Penny Classes. See CBOE's
Fees Schedule. Also, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE Amex'') assesses a tiered
electronic Professional Customer rate starting at $.32 per contract
for electronic orders which take liquidity from 0 to 16,999
contracts. See NYSE Amex's Options Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to offer Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Firms the opportunity to reduce the proposed electronic Options
Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.70 to $0.60 per
contract if the member or member organization under Common Ownership
with another member or member organization qualifies, in a given month,
for Customer Rebate Tiers 2, 3, 4, or 5 in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange is offering these market participants, that are assessed the
highest fees, the opportunity to reduce these fees.\29\ The Exchange is
proposing to offer Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms an
opportunity to reduce the proposed electronic Options Transaction
Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options by transacting Customer orders,
which would also benefit these market participants in terms of a
potential Section B rebates, which they may qualify for by adding
Customer liquidity on Phlx. As previously mentioned, Customers are not
assessed an electronic Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot
Options and Specialists and Market Makers pay lower Options Transaction
Charges as compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms. The
Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
to continue to assess Professionals a reduced fee of $0.30 per contract
for electronic Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options because
Professionals engage in trading activity similar to that conducted by
Specialists or Market Makers. For example, Professionals continue to
join bids and offers on the Exchange and thus compete for incoming
order flow. For these reasons, the Exchange assesses Professionals a
Non-Penny Pilot electronic Options Transaction Charge at a rate that is
greater than fees assessed to a Specialist and Market Maker and equal
to electronic fees assessed to a Firm and Broker-Dealer. Specialists
and Market Makers are assessed lower electronic fees as compared to
non-Customer market participants, because Specialists and Market Makers
have burdensome quoting obligations \30\ to the market that do not
apply to Customers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. Customers
are not assessed Options Transactions Charges in Non-Penny Pilot
Options because Customer order flow brings liquidity to the market,
which in turn benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Customers are not assessed a Non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge and Specialists and Market Makers are assessed a
lower electronic Non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $0.23
per contract.
    \30\ See note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose an undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
Customer Rebate Program will continue to encourage Customer order flow
to be directed to the Exchange. Market participants will be encouraged
to transact a greater number of Customer orders to qualify for a
rebate. By incentivizing members to route Customer orders to the
Exchange, the Exchange desires to attract liquidity to the Exchange,
which in turn benefits all market participants. Customer liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
All market participants are eligible to qualify for a Customer Rebate.
    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments will continue to
encourage market participants to direct Customer liquidity to Phlx
despite the increase in the tier volumes and also the Tier 2 rebate
decrease. The Exchange believes this pricing amendment does not impose
a burden on competition but rather that the proposed rule change will
continue to promote competition on the Exchange. A market participant
will be required to transact more Customer volume to earn certain
Customer rebates. While some participants will be required to transact
a greater number of Customer orders to continue to earn a Tier 2 or 3
rebate, and some will earn a lower Tier 2 Category A rebate, the
Exchange believes that

members will be encouraged to transact a greater number of Customer
contracts to continue to earn rebates, which will promote competition.
    In addition, Specialists and Market Makers may qualify for a $0.02
Rebate by qualifying for Tier 2, which should incentivize Specialists
and Market Makers to transact a greater number of Customer orders on
the Exchange to achieve the $0.02 Rebate and therefore would not create
an undue burden on competition, but would instead encourage
competition.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase electronic Professional,
Broker-Dealer and Firm Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot
Options from $0.60 to $0.70 per will not impose an undue burden on
competition because the Exchange will assess Professionals, Broker-
Dealers and Firms the same electronic Options Transaction Charge in
Non-Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange does not assess Customers an
electronic Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options
because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the
benefit of all market participants. Specialists and Market Makers are
assessed lower electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny
Pilot Options as compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms
because they have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\31\ The differentiation as between Customers, Specialists
and Market Makers and other market participants recognizes the
differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment
on the Exchange by these market participants. Additionally,
Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms may reduce their Options
Transaction Charges to $0.60 per contract provided they qualify for
Customer Rebate Tiers 2, 3, 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing
Schedule. This incentive encourages these participants to add Customer
liquidity on Phlx which liquidity benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\32\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-14. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-14,
and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05983 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36148-36149]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-D-2163]

Child-Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug Product Labeling;
Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Child-
Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug Product Labeling.'' This
guidance is intended to assist applicants, manufacturers, packagers,
and distributors who choose to include child-resistant packaging (CRP)
statements in prescription and over-the-counter human drug product
labeling. The guidance discusses what information should be included to
support CRP statements and to help ensure that such labeling is clear,
useful, informative, and, to the extent possible, consistent in content
and format.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by October 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-D-2163 for ``Child-Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug
Product Labeling.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Lostritto, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4132, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
1697; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm.
7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Child-Resistant Packaging Statements in Drug Product
Labeling.'' In 1970, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA) was
enacted to protect children (under 5 years of age) from unintentional
exposure to household substances including food, drugs, and cosmetics.
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), a drug
that has packaging or labeling that is in violation of a regulation
issued pursuant to section 3 or 4 of the PPPA is deemed to be
misbranded. FDA was responsible for enforcing the PPPA until 1973, when
jurisdiction was transferred to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC). Because of FDA's authority to regulate labeling for
prescription and nonprescription drug products, if firms choose to make
statements in their labeling for such products about CRP, such
statements must comply with FDA's statutory and regulatory
requirements. The draft guidance explains that to ensure that CRP
statements on labeling are not false or misleading, such statements
should only be used when the drug product packaging has been shown to
comply with the applicable CPSC regulatory standards and test
procedures for CRP. This guidance is intended to apply to FDA-regulated
drug products that bear CRP statements, regardless of whether CRP is
required for such products under 16 CFR 1700. For example, bulk
packages of prescription drugs that are shipped to pharmacies for
repackaging by a pharmacist are not required to utilize CRP, but a firm
may nevertheless choose to use CRP (and a CRP statement) for such
drugs.
    CPSC's regulations list ``special packaging standards'' (also
referred to herein as child-resistant packaging, or CRP) for a wide
range of household products, including most oral prescription drugs and
many nonprescription drug products (see 16 CFR 1700 for substances
requiring special packaging and the relevant packaging standards and
testing procedures). There are different ways to make packaging child-
resistant, with the most common forms being a child-resistant closure
(e.g., a ``safety cap'') and certain unit-dose blister packaging (e.g.,
puncture-resistant and peel-push blisters).
    Child-resistant packaging is regarded as an important public health
safety tool for avoiding harmful outcomes related to unsupervised
pediatric ingestions. FDA advocates that all drugs, irrespective of the
type of packaging, be stored safely out of reach and sight of children
to further the overall public health efforts to address this safety
issue.
    Because health care professionals and consumers may not be able to
determine on visual inspection whether the packaging is child-
resistant, a labeling statement may help to identify this attribute.
Therefore, in this guidance, we recommend text that may be appropriate
to consider when including CRP statements on the containers and
packaging of products.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on child-
resistant packaging statements in drug product labeling. It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. Because FDA's
guidance documents do not bind the public or FDA to any requirements,
this guidance is not considered to be subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collection of information for submitting labeling in
original and supplemental new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new
drug applications (ANDAs), and biologics license applications (BLAs) in
21 CFR 314.50(e) and (l), 314.94(a)(8), 314.70, and 314.97, and 21 CFR
601.2 and 601.12 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001
and 0910-0338, respectively. The collection of information for
preparing prescription drug product labeling under 21 CFR 201.56 and
201.57 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572. The
collection of information for Drug Facts labeling under 21 CFR 201.66
has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0340. The collection of
information for Medication Guides has been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0393. The collection of information for submitting
chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information in original and
supplemental NDAs, ANDAs, and BLAs in 21 CFR 314.50(d)(1),
314.94(a)(9), 314.70, and 314.97, and 21 CFR 601.2 and 601.12 has been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0001 and 0910-0338,
respectively.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 31, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-16379 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36106-36111]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16171]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0073, 0074, 0075 and 0076; EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0003;
FRL-9965-36-OLEM]

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add four sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL and withdraws a previous proposal to list
one site on the NPL.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before October 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.

                  Docket Identification Numbers by Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                City/county,
          Site name                state             Docket ID No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newark South Ground Water     Newark, DE.....  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0073.
 Plume.
American Creosote DeRidder..  DeRidder, LA...  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0074.
Mississippi Phosphates        Pascagoula, MS.  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0075.
 Corporation.
Eagle Industries............  Midwest City,    EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0076.
                               OK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate docket number,
at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on

making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    To send a comment via the United States Postal Service, use the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Superfund
Docket Center, Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
    Use the Docket Center address below if you are using express mail,
commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier. Delivery verification
signatures will be available only during regular business hours: EPA
Superfund Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    For additional docket addresses and further details on their
contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public Comment,'' of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
    K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
    B. How do I access the documents?
    C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
    D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
regional dockets?
    E. How do I submit my comments?
    F. What happens to my comments?
    G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
    H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
    I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
    J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed additions to the NPL
    B. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal to list a Site on the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR
part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section
105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP
sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial
threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several
occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990
(55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP
(40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires that
the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to
guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental
risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific
property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the
``General Superfund section''), and one of sites that are owned or
operated by other federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section,
these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies.
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA
section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300).
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS
evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure and
air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or
greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its top
priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one
facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public
health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state.
This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
     The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.
    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. Plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. Plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation
(``RI'') ``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release'' as more information is
developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability
to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or

    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the
EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-remedial-performance-measures#cc_anchor.

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA
places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows
contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic
vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
    The EPA is improving the transparency of the process by which state
and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where
appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1)
explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for
proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to
address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3)
emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states
that information on their responses will be publicly available.
    A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between
the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the
EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and
scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public
dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in
the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic
access at https://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the
``Addresses'' section above).

B. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the regional dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal
holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William
Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/
566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments
to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
     Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
     Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
     Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA
19103; 215/814-3355.
     Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8637.
     Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
     Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/
665-7436.
     Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
     Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY),
U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
303/312-6578.
     Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/947-4250.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
    You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the
regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note
that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized
maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not
equipped to both copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them
out electronically.
    You may use the docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access

documents in the Headquarters docket (see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section). Please note that there are differences between the
Headquarters docket and the regional dockets and those differences are
outlined in this preamble, Sections II.C and D.

C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?

    The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the
following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets;
documentation records describing the information used to compute the
score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents
referenced in the documentation record.

D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional
dockets?

    The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the
information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the
EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These
reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

E. How do I submit my comments?

    Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at
the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note
that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery.
There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are
sent by express mail or by postal mail.

F. What happens to my comments?

    The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document
if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA
will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS
or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless
they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

    Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can
guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the
close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally
not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments.

I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional
dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic
public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them
and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public dockets system,
select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add four sites to
the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this
proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or
above.
    The sites are presented in the table below.

                                            General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                               Site name                          City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE......................................  Newark South Ground Water Plume.  Newark.
LA......................................  American Creosote DeRidder......  DeRidder.
MS......................................  Mississippi Phosphates            Pascagoula.
                                           Corporation.
OK......................................  Eagle Industries................  Midwest City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal To List a Site on the NPL

    The EPA is withdrawing its previous proposal to add the Burlington
Northern Livingston Shop Complex site in Livingston, Montana to the NPL
because the potentially responsible party, Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway Company, will complete the remaining actions to investigate and
clean up contamination at the facility pursuant to the State of Montana
Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA) and
the 1990 Modified Partial Consent Decree and subsequent Statements of
Work. The rule proposing to add this site to the NPL can be found at 59
FR 43314 (August 23, 1994). Refer to the Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1994-0003 for supporting documentation regarding this action. Other
information regarding this site can be found on the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality Web page at http://deq.mt.gov/Land/statesuperfund/bnlivingston.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group,
including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards
or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct
costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is
liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends
on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL
through this rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does
listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in
nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide
protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future
regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health
and safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in
Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in
determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the
nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated
with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The
NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to
any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p.193.

    Dated: July 27, 2017.
Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-16171 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78852-78854]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31460; Amdt. No. 4037]

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 establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) 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 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 23, 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 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters 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 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
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed
on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20.
The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B,
when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the typed of SIAPS, 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/or 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, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. 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 some 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.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 25, 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, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures 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:

Effective 29 December 2022

Chandler, AZ, P19, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Chandler, AZ, P19, VOR-A, Amdt 1D, CANCELED
Bedford, IN, KBFR, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 10D
Dodge Center, MN, KTOB, VOR-A, Amdt 5
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, ILS OR LOC RWY 1L, Amdt 18
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 16
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, ILS OR LOC RWY 19L, Amdt 4
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, ILS OR LOC RWY 19R, ILS RWY 19R (SA CAT I),
ILS RWY 19R (CAT II), ILS RWY 19R (CAT III), Amdt 14
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 6
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 1L, Amdt 4
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 1R, Amdt 4
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 9, Amdt 4
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 19L, Amdt 4
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 19R, Amdt 4
Kansas City, MO, KMCI, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 27, Amdt 4
West Milford, NJ, 4N1, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1D
Hobbs, NM, KHOB, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 2
Hobbs, NM, KHOB, VOR OR TACAN RWY 21, Amdt 9E
Spokane, WA, KSFF, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Amdt 1D
Minocqua-Woodruff, WI, KARV, LOC RWY 36, Amdt 2, CANCELED
Oshkosh, WI, KOSH, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A

[FR Doc. 2022-27976 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P