[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5650-5654]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03105]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R04-RCRA-2019-0768; FRL-9989-92-Region 4]

Florida: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Florida has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended.
EPA has reviewed Florida's application and has determined, subject to
public comment, that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to
qualify for final

authorization. Therefore, we are proposing to authorize the State's
changes. EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
RCRA-2019-0768, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Davis, Materials and Waste
Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
8960; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, states must
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to
state programs may be necessary when Federal or state statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
    New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized states at the
same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and prohibitions in Florida, including the
issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the
State is granted authorization to do so.

B. What decisions has EPA made in this proposed rule?

    Florida submitted a final complete program revision application,
dated August 31, 2018, seeking authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program that correspond to certain Federal rules
promulgated between July 1, 1991 and June 30, 2017 (including RCRA
Clusters \1\ II, III, IX, XVIII, XX, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, and XXV). EPA
concludes that Florida's application to revise its authorized program
meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established
under RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b),
and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA proposes to grant Florida final
authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes
described in the authorization application, and as outlined below in
Section F of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``cluster'' is a grouping of hazardous waste rules that
EPA promulgates from July 1st of one year to June 30th of the
following year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its
program revision application, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as
discussed above.

C. What is the effect of this proposed authorization decision?

    If Florida is authorized for the changes described in Florida's
authorization application, these changes will become part of the
authorized State hazardous waste program, and will therefore be
federally enforceable. Florida will continue to have primary
enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste
program. EPA would maintain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007,
3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
     Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses and reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State
program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
    This action will not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which EPA is proposing
to authorize Florida are already effective under State law, and are not
changed by today's proposed action.

D. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

    EPA will evaluate any comments received on this proposed action and
will make a final decision on approval or disapproval of Florida's
proposed authorization. Our decision will be published in the Federal
Register. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want
to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

E. What has Florida previously been authorized for?

    Florida initially received final authorization on January 29, 1985,
effective February 12, 1985 (50 FR 3908), to implement the RCRA
hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for
changes to Florida's program on the following dates: December 1, 1987,
effective March 3, 1988 (52 FR 45634); December 16, 1988, effective
January 3, 1989 (53 FR 50529); December 14, 1990, effective February
12, 1991 (55 FR 51416); February 5, 1992, effective April 6, 1992 (57
FR 4371); February 7, 1992, effective April 7, 1992 (57 FR 4738); May
20, 1992, effective July 20, 1992 (57 FR 21351); November 9, 1993,
effective January 10, 1994 (58 FR 59367); July 11, 1994, effective
September 9, 1994 (59 FR 35266); April 16, 1994, effective October 17,
1994 (59 FR 41979); October 26, 1994, effective December 27, 1994 (59
FR 53753); April 1, 1997, effective June 2, 1997 (62 FR 15407);
September 18, 2000, effective November 18, 2000 (65 FR 56256); August
23, 2001, effective October 22, 2001 (66 FR 44307); August 20, 2002,
effective October 21, 2002 (67 FR 53886 and 67 FR 53889); October 14,
2004, effective December 13, 2004 (69 FR 60964); August 10, 2007,
effective October 9, 2007 (72 FR 44973); February 7, 2011, effective
April 8, 2011 (76 FR 6564); and October 8, 2014, effective December 8,
2014 (79 FR 60756). The authorized Florida program, through RCRA
Cluster IV, was incorporated by reference into

the CFR on January 20, 1998, effective March 23, 1998 (63 FR 2896).

F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?

    Florida submitted a final complete program revision application,
dated August 31, 2018, seeking authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste management program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.
This application included changes associated with Checklists \2\ 104,
107, 178, 218, 222, 223, and 228 through 237. Florida previously
submitted program revision applications for Checklists 218, 222, 223,
and 228 through 235. It resubmitted these Checklists with its August
31, 2018 application in response to EPA comments. EPA proposes to
determine, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this
action, that Florida's hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent
to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program,
and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization. Therefore, EPA is proposing to authorize Florida
for the following program changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``checklist'' is developed by EPA for each Federal rule
amending the RCRA regulations. The checklists document the changes
made by each Federal rule and are presented and numbered in
chronological order by date of promulgation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Federal Register
    Description of Federal        Date and Page       Analogous State
          Requirement                                  authority \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checklist 104, Used Oil Filter  57 FR 21524, 5/20/ F.A.C. 62-730.030(1).
 Exclusion.                      92.
Checklist 107, Used Oil Filter  57 FR 29220, 7/1/  F.A.C. 62-730.030(1).
 Exclusion; Technical            92.
 Correction.
Checklist 178, Petroleum        64 FR 6806, 2/11/  F.A.C. 62-730.030(1).
 Refining Process Wastes;        99.
 Leachate Exemption.
Checklist 218, F019 Exemption   73 FR 31756, 6/4/  F.A.C. 62-730.030(1).
 for Wastewater Treatment        08.
 Sludges from Auto
 Manufacturing Zinc
 Phosphating Processes.
Checklist 222, OECD             75 FR 1236, 1/8/   F.A.C. 62-730.160(1);
 Requirements; Export            10.                62-730.170(1); 62-
 Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid                       730.180(1) and (2);
 Batteries.                                         and 62-730.181(1).
Checklist 223, Hazardous Waste  75 FR 12989, 3/18/ F.A.C. 62-730.020(1);
 Technical Corrections and       10; 75 FR 31716,   62-730.030(1); 62-
 Clarifications.                 6/4/10.            730.160(1); 62-
                                                    730.170(1); 62-
                                                    730.180(1) and (2);
                                                    62-730.181(1); 62-
                                                    730.183; and 62-
                                                    730.220(1).
Checklist 228, Hazardous Waste  77 FR 22229, 4/13/ F.A.C. 62-730.030(1)
 Technical Corrections and       12.                and 62-730.181(1).
 Clarifications.
Checklist 229, Conditional      78 FR 46448, 7/31/ F.A.C. 62-730.020(1)
 Exclusion for Solvent           13.                and 62-730.030(1).
 Contaminated Wipes.
Checklist 230, Conditional      79 FR 350,1/3/14.  F.A.C. 62-730.020(1)
 Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide                       and 62-730.030(1).
 (CO2) Streams in Geologic
 Sequestration Activities.
Checklist 231, Hazardous Waste  79 FR 7518, 2/7/   F.A.C. 62-730.020(1);
 Electronic Manifest Rule.       14.                62-730.160(1); 62-
                                                    730.170(1); and 62-
                                                    730.180(1) and (2).
Checklist 232, Revisions to     79 FR 36220, 6/26/ F.A.C. 62-730.020(1)
 the Export Provisions of the    14.                and 62-730.030(1).
 Cathode Ray Tube Rule.
Checklist 233, Revisions to
 the Definition of Solid Waste
    233A......................  80 FR 1694, 1/13/  F.A.C. 62-730.021.
                                 15..
    233B......................                     F.A.C. 62-730.020(1);
                                                    62-730.021; and 62-
                                                    730.030(1).
    233C......................                     F.A.C. 62-730.030(1).
    233D2.....................                     F.A.C. 62-730.020(1);
                                                    62-730.021; 62-
                                                    730.030(1); and 62-
                                                    730.220.
    233E......................                     F.A.C. 62-730.020(1)
                                                    and 62-730.030(1).
Checklist 234, Response to      80 FR 18777, 4/8/  F.A.C. 62-730.020(1)
 Vacaturs of the Comparable      15.                and 62-730.030(1).
 Fuels Rule and the
 Gasification Rule.
Checklist 235, Disposal of      80 FR 21301, 4/17/ F.A.C. 62-730.030(1).
 Coal Combustion Residuals       15.
 from Electric Utilities.
Checklist 236, Imports and      81 FR 85696, 11/   F.A.C. 62-730.020(1);
 Exports of Hazardous Waste.     28/16; 82 FR       62-730.021; 62-
                                 41015, 8/29/17.    730.030(1); 62-
                                                    730.160(1); 62-
                                                    730.170(1); 62-
                                                    730.180(1) and (2);
                                                    62-730.181(1); and
                                                    62-730.185(1).
Checklist 237, Hazardous Waste  81 FR 85732, 11/   F.A.C. 62-710.210(2);
 Generator Improvements Rule.    28/16.             62-730.020(1); 62-
                                                    730.021; 62-
                                                    730.030(1); 62-
                                                    730.160(1), (3) and
                                                    (4); 62-730.170(1);
                                                    62-730.180(1) and
                                                    (2); 62-730.181(1);
                                                    62-730.183(1); 62-
                                                    730.185(1); and 62-
                                                    730.220(1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    When revised state rules differ from the Federal rules in the RCRA
state authorization process, EPA determines whether the state rules are
equivalent to, more stringent than, or broader in scope than the
Federal program. Pursuant to Section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929,
state programs may contain requirements that are more stringent than
the Federal regulations. Such more stringent requirements can be
federally authorized and, once authorized, become federally
enforceable. Although the statute does not prevent states from adopting
regulations that are broader in scope than the Federal program, states
cannot receive federal authorization for such regulations, and they are
not federally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Florida regulatory citations are from the Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), effective June 18, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has determined that certain regulations included in Florida's
program revision application are more stringent than the Federal
program. All of these more stringent requirements will become part of
the federally enforceable RCRA program in Florida when authorized.
Florida is more stringent than the Federal program at 40 CFR 262.16 and
40 CFR 262.17 because F.A.C. 62-730.160(3) requires that generators
keep written documentation of all inspections required by 40 CFR 262.16
and 40 CFR 262.17 for at least

three years from the date of the inspection. Documentation of these
inspections is not required by the Federal regulations.
    Florida is broader in scope than the Federal program in its
adoption of 40 CFR 260.43 (2017) at F.A.C. 62-730.021, and 40 CFR
261.4(a)(24) (2017) at F.A.C. 62-730.030(1). Both of these regulations
include provisions from the 2015 Revisions to the Definition of Solid
Waste (DSW) Rule that have been vacated and replaced with the less
stringent requirements of 40 CFR 260.43 (2008) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)
and (25) (2008) from the 2008 DSW Rule (see 83 FR 24664, May 30, 2018).
Broader-in-scope requirements are not part of the authorized program
and EPA cannot enforce them. Although regulated entities must comply
with these requirements in accordance with State law, they are not RCRA
requirements.
    States cannot receive authorization for certain Federal regulatory
functions included in the regulations associated with the Hazardous
Waste Electronic Manifest Rule (Checklist 231). Although Florida has
adopted these regulations to maintain its equivalency with the Federal
program, it has appropriately maintained the Federal references (see
F.A.C. 62-730.020(3)(b)(1)).
    States also cannot receive authorization for certain Federal
regulatory functions included in the regulations involving
international shipments (i.e., import and export provisions) associated
with the OECD Requirements for Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid
Batteries (Checklist 222), the Revisions to the Export Provisions of
the Cathode Ray Tube Rule (Checklist 232), and the Imports and Exports
of Hazardous Waste Rule (Checklist 236). Although Florida has adopted
these regulations to maintain its equivalency with the Federal program,
it has appropriately maintained the Federal references (see F.A.C. 62-
730.020(3)(b)(1)).

H. Who handles permits after the final authorization takes effect?

    When final authorization takes effect, Florida will issue permits
for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer
the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA
hazardous waste permits or portions of permits that EPA issued prior to
the effective date of authorization until they expire or are
terminated. EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of
permits for the provisions listed in the table above after the
effective date of the final authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Florida is
not yet authorized. EPA has the authority to enforce State-issued
permits after the State is authorized.

I. How does today's proposed action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C.
1151) in Florida?

    Florida is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program
in Indian country within the State, which includes the Indian lands
associated with the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and The
Seminole Tribe of Florida. Therefore, this proposed action has no
effect on Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction over Indian country
and will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these
lands.

J. What is codification and will EPA codify Florida's hazardous waste
program as proposed in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing citations and references to
the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's
authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal
Regulations. EPA does this by adding those citations and references to
the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not proposing to
codify the authorization of Florida's changes at this time. However,
EPA reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart K for the
authorization of Florida's program changes at a later date.

K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action proposes to
authorize State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is
not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory
action because actions such as today's proposed authorization of
Florida's revised hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempted under
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this action proposes to authorize pre-existing requirements
under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to authorize State requirements as part of
the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically
significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
    Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for
authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in proposing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of this action in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive

order. This action does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). ``Burden'' is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. Because this action proposes authorization of pre-
existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less
stringent than existing Federal requirements, and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no
anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects,
this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: December 21, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-03105 Filed 2-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8281-8288]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0514; Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment to Class B Airspace; Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Cleveland, OH, Class B airspace area
by expanding the existing airspace area to ensure containment of all
published instrument procedures and the aircraft flying those
instrument procedures within Class B airspace, and segregation of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft arriving/departing Cleveland-
Hopkins International Airport (CLE) and non-participating Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B
airspace area. The additional Class B airspace will support
simultaneous arrival and departure operations under VFR conditions and
simultaneous IFR approaches during marginal VFR conditions using
Precision Runway Monitor/Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches
(PRM/SOIA). Geographic coordinates listed in the description are also
updated to reflect current aeronautical database information. This
action enhances safety, improves the flow of air traffic, and reduces
the potential for midair collision in the Cleveland terminal area.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 7, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations,
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 20, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the Cleveland, OH, Class
B airspace area (75 FR 20528). The FAA proposed this action to ensure
containment of turbo-jet IFR aircraft conducting instrument approaches
to CLE within the confines of Class B airspace and better segregate IFR
aircraft arriving/departing CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. In response to
the NPRM, the FAA received 14 written comment submissions, including
comments from Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the
Soaring Society of America (SSA). Two comments received were duplicate
documents submitted by two different commenters. Many of the commenters
identified themselves as pilots who operate within, or through, the
local area. All comments received were considered before making a
determination on the final rule. An analysis of the comments received
and the FAA's responses are contained in the ``Discussion of Comments''
section below.
    Subsequent to the NPRM publication, typographical errors were
identified for two geographic coordinates proposed in the Area E
description published in the regulatory text. The geographic
coordinates that were published as ``lat. 42[deg]47'20'' N., long.
81[deg]27'36'' W.'' in the NPRM should have been ``lat. 41[deg]47'20''
N., long. 81[deg]27'36'' W.'', and the geographic coordinates that were
published as ``lat. 42[deg]40'43'' N., long. 81[deg]38'13'' W.'' should
have been ``lat. 41[deg]40'43'' N., long. 81[deg]38'13'' W.''. The
geographic coordinate errors are corrected in this action.

Discussion of Comments

    The AOPA cited the work of the FAA in developing this rule. They
support the proposed modifications and appreciate the common sense
approach the FAA adopted to include only that airspace required for the
containment of arrivals and departures at CLE. Further, AOPA applauded
the FAA's efforts to address and mitigate concerns raised by general
aviation pilots regarding access to the airports affected by the
redesign.
    Seven commenters objected to proposed Areas F and G. They argued
the FAA proposed these areas significantly larger than required or
presented previously. Six of the commenters wanted the lateral
dimensions of the areas reduced to only five nautical mile (NM)
extensions in length by five NM in width. One commenter argued that
federal airways are established with four NM lateral widths from a
radial of a navigation aid and that the FAA should reduce the widths of
the areas to four NM also. Three commenters wanted Areas F and

G eliminated altogether if the lateral dimensions could not be reduced.
And lastly, three commenters suggested the FAA define the boundaries of
Areas F and G to coincide with visual landmarks to prevent inadvertent
Class B airspace violations. Unless changed, the commenters believed
the proposed Areas F and G would deteriorate safe flight operations
beneath and in the vicinity of the Class B airspace extension.
    The FAA does not agree. For clarity, the lateral dimensions of
Areas F and G as proposed in the NPRM are 10 NM in length, extending
from the CLE Runway 24L ILS/DME antenna (I-HPI) 20 NM arc to the I-HPI
30 NM arc. The areas are 6 NM in width, from the CLE Runway 6R
localizer (I-CLE) signal extended to 6 NM north of the Runway 6L
localizer (I-LIZ) signal extended for Area F and from the I-CLE signal
extended to 6 NM south of the Runway 6R localizer (I-EYU) signal
extended for Area G. These lateral dimensions were determined to be the
absolute minimum essential to control IFR aircraft arriving from
multiple arrival streams that are being sequenced in the traffic
patterns for Precision Runway Monitor/Simultaneous Offset Instrument
Approaches (PRM/SOIA) procedures into CLE. The length of these areas
ensures the 15 to 18 percent of IFR aircraft arrivals that currently
enter, exit, and re-enter the CLE Class B airspace (as noted in the
NPRM) are fully contained within Class B airspace once they enter the
traffic patterns to intercept the final approach course and the PRM/
SOIA procedures. During periods of moderate and heavy traffic, aircraft
may be turned onto the PRM/SOIA finals as far as 25 NM to 30 NM from
CLE, as is the case today. The width of these areas ensures IFR arrival
aircraft conducting PRM/SOIA are contained within Class B airspace
while flying in the traffic patterns and are safely separated, in
accordance with aircraft separation standards and guidance, between
non-participating VFR aircraft that may be flying along the boundaries
of Areas F and G and IFR aircraft flying the instrument approach
procedures to Runways 6L/6R. To reduce the lateral dimensions (length
or width) of the Areas F or G Class B airspace extensions would be
impractical.
    For the same reasons as discussed above, the FAA has determined the
request to consider eliminating Areas F and G if they cannot be reduced
in size is also impractical. The extensions are necessary in the
interest of flight safety to contain all the instrument approach
procedures and the IFR aircraft flying those procedures at CLE within
Class B airspace, as well as segregate the IFR aircraft and non-
participating VFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of the CLE Class B
airspace area.
    The FAA acknowledges the benefits of using visual landmarks for
defining airspace boundaries and does so when possible. However, there
are no prominent landmarks in the areas needed to mark the lateral
boundaries of Areas F and G. Using the landmarks that the commenters
noted would not define the minimum airspace needed as addressed above.
Since there were no visual landmarks to define the boundaries of Areas
F and G, the FAA used arcs and radials from existing CLE navigation
aids to define them.
    Eight commenters suggested the split floor altitudes proposed for
Areas F and G (5,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and 6,000 feet MSL,
respectively) would cause confusion and probably some inadvertent Class
B airspace incursions. The commenters stated the split level proposed
design still presented a safety infringement to the glider operations
at Reader-Botsford airport (67D) and offered multiple recommendations
for changing the floor altitudes to remedy their concerns. Two
commenters recommended raising the floor of Areas F and G to 6,000 feet
MSL and 7,000 feet MSL, respectively; two commenters recommended making
both floor altitudes 6,000 feet MSL; and three commenters recommended
raising the Area G floor only to 7,000 feet MSL.
    The FAA does not agree and has determined it is not possible to
raise the floor altitude of either area without impacting the
operational efficiency of the PRM/SOIA into CLE. Again, for clarity,
the vertical dimensions of Areas F and G as proposed in the NPRM are
from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 feet MSL for Area F and from
6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 feet MSL for Area G. Initially,
the Class B airspace extension to the southwest in the same airspace
proposed as Areas F and G was designed as a single area with a floor
altitude of 5,000 feet MSL. After receiving public input from the ad
hoc committee and public comments following the informal airspace
meetings recommending the configuration proposed, the subdivision and
altitudes of the two areas were proposed using the minimum amount of
airspace necessary to contain PRM/SOIA procedures to Runways 6L/6R at
CLE.
    Aircraft flying PRM/SOIA procedures cannot be assigned the same
altitude during turn-on to the final approach course; they must be
assigned an altitude that differs by at least 1,000 feet from the
altitude of other aircraft conducting simultaneous approaches. Air
traffic control must continue to maintain at least 1,000 feet vertical
separation between aircraft flying PRM/SOIA procedures until they reach
14 NM from CLE where the actively monitored No Transgression Zone
between the approaches begins. Specifically, during an east flow at
CLE, aircraft will be turned onto and established on final approach
courses at 5,000 feet MSL and 7,000 feet MSL for Runway 6L, and 6,000
feet MSL and 8,000 feet MSL for Runway 6R. For both runways, air
traffic controllers may be sequencing aircraft from two or more arrival
streams, necessitating the use of multiple altitudes in the arrival
descent areas, until lateral separation is established. Under some
projected traffic scenarios, multiple altitude downwind patterns will
be utilized, with aircraft ``layered'' by altitude and worked by
separate controllers. As the boundary between Areas F and G is based on
the extended Runway 6R localizer I-CLE signal, the FAA continues to
believe that Class B incursions will not become an issue.
    Lastly, as noted in the NPRM, the proposed Areas F and G are
expected to provide the gliders operating at 67D with airspace
supportive of their operations while at the same time ensuring the
integrity of the CLE Class B airspace by containing all instrument
procedures and the IFR aircraft flying the procedures at CLE.
    Eleven commenters stated that establishing the proposed Areas F and
G extension would adversely affect flight safety beneath and in the
near vicinity of the extension. The safety concerns cited included
compression of general aviation aircraft under the extension where
gliders operate, increased potential for mid-air collisions, wake
turbulence effects on gliders from heavy aircraft arrivals on approach
to CLE, and increased potential for off-field landings by glider pilots
as a result of the extension overhead 67D.
    The FAA acknowledges that some compression will occur since non-
participating VFR general aviation and glider aircraft have their
choice of flying either above or below the Class B airspace extension
or circumnavigating it further west to remain clear should they decide
not to contact the Cleveland Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)
facility to receive Class B services. However, establishing the Class B
airspace extensions is necessary, consistent with regulatory guidance,
to contain all instrument procedures and the IFR turbo-jet aircraft
flying the instrument approach procedures within

Class B airspace, and to enhance flight safety to all in the CLE
terminal area by segregating the large turbo-jet aircraft and the non-
participating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the CLE Class B
airspace areas.
    All aircraft operating beneath or in the vicinity of Areas F and G
are expected to continue to comply with the regulatory requirements of
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Sec.  91.111,
titled Operating Near Other Aircraft, to avoid creating a collision
hazard with other aircraft operating in the same airspace.
Additionally, all aircraft operating in the same areas noted above are
expected to continue complying with 14 CFR Sec.  91.113, titled Right-
of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations, to ``see and avoid'' other
aircraft as well. The FAA believes that continued general aviation and
glider operator compliance with established flight rules regulatory
requirements, and these two regulations specifically, will overcome the
mid-air collision and wake turbulence concerns raised by the
commenters.
    Lastly, the FAA acknowledges the concerns of the glider community
with the establishment of Class B airspace overhead 67D. However, the
design of the Class B airspace extension to the southwest of CLE was
minimized to the absolute essential dimensions operationally practical
by incorporating the recommendations made by the glider community
participating on the ad hoc committee and as requested during the
informal airspace meetings. Since the majority of glider operations
occur to the south and west of 67D and the redesigned configuration of
the Class B airspace extension overlying 67D was raised to 6,000 feet
MSL, the FAA believes impacts to local area or cross-country glider
flight operation at 67D will be negligible and off-field landing will
not be a factor.
    The FAA has considered the safety concerns cited above thoroughly
and determined they do not negate the need for this action. At the
present time, large turbo-jet air carrier, general aviation, and glider
aircraft are flying simultaneously in the airspace proposed to become
Areas F and G, due to the outdated design of the CLE Class B airspace
area. The traffic compression, mid-air collisions, effects of wake
turbulence on gliders, and off-field landings concerns raised by the
commenters all exist today. Moving forward with the Class B airspace
modifications in this action will enhance flight safety for all
operators flying within, through, or near the CLE Class B airspace
area.
    Six commenters stated that the proposed Class B airspace Areas F
and G would establish Class B airspace directly over the airspace Fun
Country Soaring (FCS) currently flies in and would diminish safe glider
operations. The commenters argued that FCS would be forced to consider
shutting down its operation or relocating away from 67D. The commenters
further suggested that the loss of FCS would create personal financial
hardships and result in financial impacts for the owner of 67D and the
town of Wellington, OH.
    The FAA does not agree. As noted in the NPRM, the initial CLE Class
B airspace extension extending to the southwest was proposed from 5,000
feet MSL to 8,000 feet MSL. During the informal airspace meeting held
in Wellington, OH, a member of the glider community suggested the
airspace extension be split into a north section and a south section
whereby the floor of the Class B airspace overlying 67D, where the
gliders operate, could be raised to 6,000 feet MSL. This would provide
glider operators over 5,000 feet of airspace to maneuver and minimize
impacts to glider operations at 67D. Almost half of the comments
received following the informal airspace meetings endorsed this
recommendation, including the comments received from the Village of
Wellington, OH, Administrator. The FAA adopted this suggestion and
created Area F and Area G as proposed in the NPRM. Again, since most
glider operations occur to the south and west of 67D, the Areas F and G
proposed in the NPRM are expected to enable glider operations to
continue with negligible impact to local area or cross-country flights.
As such, the FCS operation at 67D is not expected to shut down or
relocate and the financial impacts to the FCS members, owner of 67D,
and town of Wellington, OH, that were alluded to by the commenters
responding to the NPRM, would be averted.
    Seven commenters questioned the need for the proposed CLE Class B
modifications in light of the United and Continental airlines merger.
They suggested that the merger would include considerable consolidation
and reduction of routes resulting in a lower traffic volume at CLE;
making the Class B airspace expansion unnecessary. In addition, one
commenter stated further that if the proposed Class B airspace
extension areas were being used by air carriers currently, then they
did not see the requirement to legislate the exclusion of general
aviation flyers by initiating this rulemaking action. In essence they
were, arguing this rulemaking action was not needed.
    The FAA does not agree. The FAA is taking action to modify the
current Class B airspace area to contain all instrument procedures at
CLE and the aircraft flying those instrument procedures to and from CLE
within Class B airspace, consistent with FAA directives, based on the
instrument approach and departure procedures in place today. This
action overcomes IFR aircraft entering, exiting, and reentering the CLE
Class B airspace area while flying published instrument approach
procedures and the associated traffic patterns during arrival.
Additionally, this action further enhance flight safety by segregating
IFR aircraft flying instrument procedures into CLE and VFR aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the CLE Class B airspace. The Class B
airspace modifications in this rule represent the minimum airspace
needed to reasonably accommodate the current operations, fleet mix, and
existing flight tracks at CLE.
    AOPA recommended the FAA consider raising the portion of Area B
north of the shoreline over Lake Erie from the existing 1,900 feet MSL
to 3,000 feet MSL. A second commenter also requested the FAA lift the
existing 1,900 feet MSL and 3,000 feet MSL Class B airspace floors over
Lake Erie (Areas B and C, respectively), but did not indicate an
alternative altitude. Both commenters stated that an alternative to
raising the Class B floor altitudes over Lake Erie could be the
addition of a VFR flyway. The second commenter also requested the FAA
establish a VFR flyway between the eastern Cleveland suburban airports,
Cuyahoga County Airport and Burke Lakefront Airport, and the greater
Columbus and Cincinnati airports.
    The FAA has determined it is not possible to raise the floor
altitudes for the CLE Class B airspace areas over Lake Erie, as
requested. No modifications were proposed for these areas as the
existing airspace structure was deemed sufficient to continue
supporting and protecting IFR aircraft departing Runways 6L/6R and VFR
aircraft flying along the Lake Erie shoreline. Although the commenters
cited safety reasons as the basis for their recommendation and request,
there are no known safety issues for that airspace today. The FAA
recognizes that raising the CLE Class B Areas B and C airspace floors
over Lake Erie would provide VFR pilots additional transit altitudes
and airspace over Lake Erie to operate east and west along the
shoreline north of Cleveland. However, the Class B airspace in Areas B
and C protects the IFR aircraft departing Runways 6L/6R climbing and
turning left over Lake Erie to transition

to westbound routings and the VFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of
those Class B airspace areas from the IFR departures. Additionally,
establishing VFR flyways is not a regulatory action and falls outside
the scope of this rule. As such, the commenters' VFR flyway
recommendations are being provided to the Cleveland TRACON facility for
their consideration as appropriate, and are not addressed further in
this action.
    One commenter questioned the adequacy of the air traffic controller
and radar resources to safely control and separate the aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the proposed Class B airspace Areas E, F,
and G. The commenter was specifically concerned that establishing the
new Class B airspace extensions without additional resources would
increase the number of near mid-air collisions occurring in the
airspace below the extensions due to increasing numbers of high
performance aircraft skirting beneath the proposed Class B airspace
extensions and impacting those aircraft already flying there.
    The FAA does not agree. Staffing and equipment resources are
already in place and adequate to support the CLE Class B modifications
and provide all Class B services without impacting safety or
efficiency. The FAA does not expect either to be an issue for CLE. No
air traffic control facility airspace sector changes will be required
to handle the Class B airspace modifications; hence, the existing
number of air traffic controllers assigned is sufficient. Additionally,
since there are no changes to the current traffic flows associated with
this Class B modification action, the existing radar sites, radar
displays, navigation aids and communication equipment is also
sufficient. However, should circumstances arise that indicate a need
for additional air traffic controller or radar resources, action will
be taken to obtain them.
    Three commenters stated that the geographic coordinates [latitude/
longitude] defining Areas F and G did not coincide with the text of the
NPRM and needed to be redefined consistent with the dimensions briefed
at the informal airspace meetings. Two of these commenters further
noted that the southern boundary of Area G was not parallel with the
Runway 6R centerline extended as proof the coordinates were in error.
    The FAA does not agree. The coordinates published in the NPRM
regulatory text for defining Areas F and G were validated with the
FAA's Aeronautical Navigation Procedures Group and found to be correct
and consistent with the text published in the NPRM. The FAA
acknowledges that Areas F and G proposed in the NPRM differ from what
was presented during the informal airspace meetings. However, the
proposed Areas F and G airspace published in the NPRM is the minimum
necessary to reasonably contain IFR arrival aircraft flying PRM/SOIA
procedures to runways 6L and 6R, and the geographic coordinates
published accurately reflect these areas. With respect to the comments
about the southern boundary of Area G, the commenters are correct that
the boundary is not parallel to the runway 6R centerline extended. The
northern and southern boundaries of the Area G are defined from
different navigation aids. The northern boundary is defined by the
Runway 6R localizer (I-CLE) signal extended, and the southern boundary
is defined 6 miles south and parallel to the Runway 6R localizer (I-
EYU) signal extended. This accounts for the fact that the southern
boundary of Area G is offset by 3 degrees and is not parallel to the
northern boundary.
    One commenter requested the FAA consider opening a ``Window'' into
the proposed Areas F and G to make that airspace available to glider
pilots when CLE is landing on Runways 24L and 24R. The commenter based
their request on what they noted as the FAA's practice of opening
Windows into Class A airspace for glider operations under mountain wave
conditions in Western States.
    Air traffic control has the authority to authorize, on a case by
case basis, certain operations within Class B airspace pursuant to the
regulatory requirements of 14 CFR part 91.131, Operations in Class B
Airspace. Establishing operational procedures is not a regulatory
action. As such, this commenter's request for operational procedures is
being provided to the Cleveland TRACON for further consideration as
appropriate.
    One commenter recommended that a steeper descent profile from the
existing 3 degree glide slopes at CLE be used so as to enhance air
carrier safety. The SSA was concerned that poor weather descents, with
reduced aircraft performance in landing configurations, could result in
air carrier crashes not being contained within airfield boundaries,
risking the public and others.
    The FAA does not agree. Aircraft accidents and crash sites are
influenced by many factors, i.e. nature of the emergency, altitude,
airspeed, weight, phase of flight, distance from an airport, terrain,
etc. Establishing steeper instrument approach descent profiles does not
necessarily equate to a safer approach into an airport or less risk to
the public. Additionally, glide slope angles above 3.1 degrees would
result in the loss of approach minimums for category D and E aircraft.
A 3 degree glide slope angle is the standard for safety, and increasing
the angle of the glide slope is outside the scope of this airspace
rule.
    Two commenters noted the dimensions of the airspace modifications
[presumably Areas F and G] proposed in the NPRM were different from
what the ad hoc committee discussed. One of the commenters went on to
question whether the FAA had published the airspace extension
descriptions in the NPRM with errors, while the other asserted that the
passage of time since the ad hoc committee meeting in 2008 had
diminished the public's awareness and participation in this proposed
rulemaking. In addition, five commenters argued that the airspace
modifications proposed in the NPRM did not reflect the correct
dimensions the users agreed would be a workable revision. Two of these
commenters further argued they did not think it was proper or legal for
the FAA to force what they consider to be unacceptable, unsafe
restrictions on pilots and air traffic by publishing incorrect
information without re-engaging the public forum.
    The FAA acknowledges that the dimensions of the Class B airspace
proposed in the NPRM are different from the initial airspace
configuration dimensions discussed by the ad hoc committee. However,
the FAA does not agree that the NPRM was published with errors in the
proposed airspace extension descriptions, or that the public's
awareness and participation in the rulemaking process has been
diminished. An ad hoc committee was formed to solicit local input on an
initial proposal and met in 2008 to develop recommendations to the FAA
regarding the proposed design of the Class B airspace. The committee
did not reach consensus on an airspace design, but did recommend a
variety of alternatives for the FAA to consider. In addition, as
announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 40446) on July 14, 2008, the
FAA held Informal Airspace Meetings in the CLE local area on September
16 and September 17, 2008, to inform users of the planned airspace
changes and to gather facts and information relevant to the proposed
airspace action. A comment period followed these informal airspace
meetings to solicit comments or recommendations on the proposal from
the public. Finally, the NPRM was published in the Federal Register (75
FR 20528) on April 20, 2010, to again

inform users of the proposed airspace changes and provide a 60 day
period for users to submit comments or recommendations on the proposal.
All comments received were considered prior to the FAA's determination
in this final rule action.
    The development of the CLE Class B airspace modification was a
dynamic, iterative process of informing the public of the proposed
airspace action, receiving comments and recommendations from the
public, and considering the operational requirements in concert with
public comments and recommendations received. The comments and
recommendations received from the ad hoc committee were considered by
the FAA in developing the proposed airspace action presented at the
informal airspace meetings, and the public's comments and
recommendations received following the informal airspace meetings were
considered in the development of the proposed airspace action presented
in the NPRM. As such, the proposed Class B airspace extension (Areas F
and G) descriptions in the NPRM were not published with errors and the
public's awareness and participation in this rulemaking action has not
been diminished with the passage of time.
    One commenter questioned the total operations figure of 550,171 for
CLE in 2008 that was cited in the Federal Register (75 FR 20528)
notice. The commenter stated he was unable to find any traffic numbers
near the figure presented, but did find a 200,268 total operations
statistic for 2009 provided by the Hopkins International Airport
website, as well as a Department of Transportation statistic that
showed 104,823 total departures for CLE in 2008. The commenter further
questioned that with actual traffic numbers less than half of the
volume cited in the NPRM summary was the proposed change to the
airspace really justified?
    The FAA source for the 550,171 total operations for CLE in 2008
cited in the background section of the NPRM comes from the Air Traffic
Activity Data Systems (ATADS). The FAA's ATADS contains the official
National Airspace System (NAS) air traffic operations data available
for public release. The total operations figure cited in the NPRM is in
fact the total terminal operations for CLE; which is the sum of the
tower operations (240,340) and the TRACON operations (309,831) using
the Cleveland Class B airspace area. The total operations figure the
commenter cited from the Hopkins International Airport website is the
total airport operations; which reflect the IFR and VFR arrivals,
departures, and local operations at the airport only. It does not
account for any overflight operations flying in the vicinity of CLE
that contribute to the traffic density or operational complexity.
    As noted in the NPRM, the procedural requirements for using PRM/
SOIA to establish aircraft on final at least 15 miles from CLE result
in aircraft exceeding the lateral boundaries of the current Class B
airspace by up to 10 miles during moderate levels of air traffic. Based
on the total terminal operations figures above and the existing IFR
traffic flows in the vicinity of CLE, the FAA has determined the
proposed Class B airspace area modifications are justified and
necessary. The Class B airspace extensions will enhance flight safety
by containing all instrument procedures and the aircraft flying the
instrument approach procedures within Class B airspace and ensuring the
segregation of IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and VFR general
aviation and glider aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland
Class B airspace area.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 to modify the Cleveland, OH,
Class B airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached chart)
administratively corrects one area within the existing Cleveland Class
B airspace area and establishes two airspace extensions (the first,
Area E, to the northeast, and the second, defined by Areas F and G, to
the southwest) in order to provide additional airspace needed to
contain IFR aircraft conducting instrument approach operations within
Class B airspace once they have entered it and to better segregate the
IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and the non-participating VFR
aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace
area. The modifications to the Cleveland Class B airspace area are
discussed below.
    Areas A, C, and D. Areas A, C, and D are unchanged by this action.
    Area B. The FAA is correcting the legal description for Area B by
removing the portion that excludes the airspace within a 2-mile radius
of Burke Lakefront Airport. The Class B airspace within Area B does not
overlap the airspace contained within a 2-mile radius of the Burke
Lakefront Airport. Therefore, the Area B exclusion language addressing
the airspace within a 2-mile radius of Burke Lakefront Airport is
unnecessary.
    Area E. Area E is established to the northeast of CLE. This
modification extends from the existing Area D boundary defined by the
20-mile arc of I-HPI to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI. The northern boundary
of this area is 6 miles north and parallel to the Runway 24R localizer
(I-PVY) signal extended, and the southern boundary is 6 miles south and
parallel to the Runway 24L localizer (I-FVZ) signal extended. This new
area is established with the floor extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL
to and including 8,000 feet MSL, overlying the Willoughby Lost Nation
Airport in Willoughby, OH. The effect of this new area ensures IFR
aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 24L and 24R are
contained within Class B airspace throughout the approach, segregates
IFR aircraft arriving CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft operating
in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area, and provides
airspace below and above this area for non-participating VFR aircraft
operations outside of Class B airspace.
    Area F. Area F is established to the southwest of CLE. This
modification extends from the existing Area D boundary defined by the
20-mile arc of I-HPI to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI. The northern boundary
is 6 miles north and parallel to the Runway 6L localizer (I-LIZ) signal
extended, and the southern boundary is defined by the Runway 6R
localizer (I-CLE) signal extended. This new area is established with
the floor extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000
feet MSL, overlying to the north and west of Wellington, OH. Similar to
the effect of Area E, this new area [with Area G described below]
ensures IFR aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 6L and 6R
are contained within Class B airspace throughout the approach,
segregates IFR aircraft arriving CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area, and
provides airspace below and above this area for VFR aircraft operations
outside of Class B airspace.
    Area G. Area G is established to the southwest of CLE also. This
modification extends from the existing Area D boundary defined by the
20-mile arc of I-HPI to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI. The northern boundary
is defined by the Runway 6R localizer (I-CLE) signal extended, and the
southern boundary is defined 6 miles south and parallel to the Runway
6R localizer (I-EYU) signal extended. This new area is established with
the floor extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000
feet MSL, overlying the Reader-Botsford Airport in Wellington, OH.
Similar to the effect of Areas E and F, this new area (with Area F
described above) ensures

IFR aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 6L and 6R are
contained within Class B airspace throughout the approach, segregates
IFR aircraft arriving CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft operating
in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area, and provides
airspace below and above this area for VFR aircraft operations outside
of Class B airspace.
    Additionally, this action updates the CLE airport reference point
and the CLE Runway 24L ILS/DME antenna (I-HPI) geographic coordinates
listed in the airspace designation of the Cleveland Class B airspace
area to reflect current NAS aeronautical data.

Environmental Review

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no new information collection requirement associated with this final
rule.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows.
    This final rule enhances safety by improving the flow of air
traffic, and reducing the potential for midair collision in the
Cleveland terminal area. In the NPRM, we concluded that the benefits of
the proposed rule exceeded any minimal cost associated with the
requirements. One commenter indicated that a soaring club would be
forced to consider shutting down or relocating operations as a result
of the proposal. The company may decide not to relocate which would
result in no additional costs. If a company changes locations, there
would be relocation costs. However, as explained earlier, the final
rule will continue to allow glider operations resulting in only a
minimal impact.
    The FAA has determined establishing these requirements are
essential to ensure flight safety and efficiency of the NAS in the CLE
terminal airspace. Due to the efficiency and safety benefits, and
because we have incorporated the recommendations of affected
individuals into the requirements, there will only be minimal economic
cost with substantial positive net benefits.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    Our initial determination was that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
One commenter indicated that a soaring club would be affected as a
result of the proposal. We agree that, if a company changes locations,
there would be some relocation cost. However, because we have
incorporated the recommendations of affected individuals into the
requirements, and we expect operations to continue, there will be
minimal economic impact. As such, this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the economic impact is expected to be minimal.
    Therefore, the FAA Administrator certifies that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not

operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA
has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that it will
enhance safety and is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B airspace

* * * * *

AGL OH B Cleveland, OH [Modified]

Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 41[deg]24'34'' N., long. 81[deg]51'18'' W.)
Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport Runway 24L ILS/DME Antenna
(I-HPI)
    (Lat. 41[deg]23'44'' N., long. 81[deg]52'18'' W.)
Gilbert Airport (Pvt)
    (Lat. 41[deg]22'00'' N., long. 81[deg]58'00'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 8,000 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of I-HPI, excluding
that airspace within a 1-mile radius of Gilbert Airport.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL within an 8.5-mile radius of I-HPI,
excluding Area A previously described.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of I-HPI,
excluding Areas A and B previously described.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of I-HPI,
excluding Areas A, B, and C previously described.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL starting at point lat. 41[deg]30'41''
N., long. 81[deg]27'22'' W., then northeast to point lat.
41[deg]37'00'' N., long. 81[deg]16'29'' W., then northwest along the
30-mile arc of I-HPI to point lat. 41[deg]47'20'' N., long.
81[deg]27'36'' W., then southwest to point lat. 41[deg]40'43'' N.,
long. 81[deg]38'13'' W., then southeast along the 20-mile arc of I-
HPI to the point of beginning.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL starting at point lat. 41[deg]16'17''
N., long. 82[deg]16'56'' W., then southwest to point lat.
41[deg]09'35'' N., long. 82[deg]27'23'' W., then southeast along the
30-mile arc of I-HPI to point lat. 41[deg]04'24'' N., long.
82[deg]22'43'' W., then northeast to point lat. 41[deg]10'52'' N.,
long. 82[deg]12'37'' W., then northwest along the 20-mile arc of I-
HPI to the point of beginning.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL starting at point lat. 41[deg]06'13''
N., long. 82[deg]05'07'' W., then southwest to point lat.
40[deg]59'08'' N., long. 82[deg]15'03'' W., then northwest along the
30-mile arc of I-HPI to point lat. 41[deg]04'24'' N., long.
82[deg]22'43'' W., then northeast to point lat. 41[deg]10'52'' N,
long. 82[deg]12'37'' W, then southeast along the 20-mile arc of I-
HPI to the point of beginning.
BILLING CODE-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE11.011

BILLING CODE C

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 7, 2011.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-3211 Filed 2-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18667-18668]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-
2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2006-25246;
FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2010-0287; FMCSA-2010-0372;
FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
27 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective April 21, 2013. Comments must be
received on or before April 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: [Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-
2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-
2005-20027; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-
2010-0287; FMCSA-2010-0372; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010] using any
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on December
29, 2010 (75 FR 82132), or you may visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 27 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 27 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Roger B. Anders (MD)
John D. Bolding, Jr. (OK)
Daniel H. Bungartz (WI)
Benny J. Burke (AL)
David J. Collier (IA)
Michael P. Curtin (IL)
Richard L. Elyard (VA)
Elias Gomez, Jr. (TX)
Gary J. Hambrick (GA)
Michael E. Herrera, Jr. (NM)
James K. Holmes (PA)
Michael R. Holmes (SD)
Mark C. Jeffrey (MT)
William S. LaMar, Sr. (IA)
Shelby V. Nicholson (KY)
Harry M. Oxendine (NC)

James R. Petre (MD)
Gary W. Pope (AK)
Zeljko Popovac (VT)
Jerald W. Rehnke (MN)
James R. Rieck (CA)
Alvaro F. Rodriguez (TX)
Raymond E. Royer (MN)
Richie J. Schwendy (IL)
Jesse J. Sutton (IN)
Bill J. Thierolf (NE)
Janusz Tyrpien (FL)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 27 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (57 FR 57266; 63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR
66286; 66 FR 13825; 66 FR 17994; 67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 68 FR 10300;
68 FR 10301; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 15037; 68 FR 19596; 69 FR 62741; 70 FR
2701; 70 FR 7546; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 14747; 70 FR 16886; 70 FR 16887;
71 FR 62147; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 7111; 72 FR
9397; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR 11426; 72 FR 12665; 72 FR 18726; 73 FR 20245;
73 FR 38497; 73 FR 48271; 73 FR 75806; 73 FR 76440; 73 FR 78421; 73 FR
78422; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 8302; 74 FR 9329; 74 FR 11991; 75 FR 69737; 75
FR 72869; 75 FR 77942; 75 FR 79079; 76 FR 1499; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 7894;
76 FR 8809; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 9865; 76 FR 11215; 76 FR 12216; 76 FR
15360; 76 FR 17483; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 20078). Each of these 27
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by April 26, 2013.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 27 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: March 19, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-07105 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5506-5508]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01970]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71410; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Increase Its Options
Regulatory Fee

January 27, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 22, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to increase its Options Regulatory Fee. The
Exchange proposes to implement this change on February 3, 2014. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to increase its Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF''), effective February 3, 2014.
Background
    The ORF, which is currently $0.005 per contract, is assessed by the
Exchange on each ATP Holder for all options transactions executed or
cleared by the ATP Holder that are cleared by The Options Clearing
Corporations (``OCC'') in the customer range, i.e., transactions that
clear in the customer account of the ATP Holder's clearing firm at OCC,
regardless of the marketplace of execution.\4\ In other words, the
Exchange imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions executed by
an ATP Holder even if the transactions do not take place on the
Exchange. In the case where an ATP Holder executes a transaction and a
different ATP Holder clears the transaction, the ORF would be assessed
to the ATP Holder that executes the transaction. In the case where a
non-ATP Holder executes a transaction and an ATP Holder clears the
transaction, the ORF would be assessed to the ATP Holder that clears
the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-68183 (November
8, 2012), 77 FR 68186 (November 15, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dues and fees paid by ATP Holders go into the general funds of
the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of
regulation. In particular, the ORF is designed to recover a material
portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation
of ATP Holders, including performing routine surveillances and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and
enforcement activities. The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that this revenue, in combination with
other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The
ORF is collected indirectly from ATP Holders through their clearing
firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
Proposed Change
    The Exchange proposes to increase the ORF from $0.005 per contract
to $0.0055 per contract in order to recoup increased regulatory
expenses while also ensuring that the ORF will not exceed such
expenses. Transaction volumes across the industry have increased
moderately since the ORF was last changed in December 2012, but the
Exchange's regulatory expenses have increased at a faster rate. The
Exchange believes that revenue generated from the proposed ORF, when
combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will cover a
material portion but not all of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The
Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from
the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory
fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. If the Exchange
determines that regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the
Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee filing change to the
Commission.\5\ The Exchange proposes to implement this fee change on
February 3, 2014.

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

    \5\ The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with
respect to member compliance with options sales practice rules have
been allocated to FINRA under an SEC Rule 17d-2 agreement; the ORF
is not designed to cover the cost of options sales practice
regulation. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-64400 (May 4,
2011), 76 FR 27118 (May 10, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)
and (5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, because it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable
because the Exchange's revenue from the collection of the ORF has not
kept pace with Exchange's regulatory expenses. As described above, the
ORF seeks to recover the costs of supervising and regulating members,
including performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well
as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The
proposed ORF increase will help to offset these regulatory expenses,
but would not result in total regulatory revenue exceeding total
regulatory costs. The Exchange further notes that another options
exchange has raised its options regulatory fee to $0.0095 per contract
and thus the Exchange's ORF of $0.0055 per contract will still be below
that level.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-71007 (December
6, 2013), 78 FR 75653 (December 12, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-117).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed ORF increase is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to
all ATP Holders on all of their transactions that clear in the customer
range at OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness
by assessing higher fees to those member firms that require more
Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options
business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is more
labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity. Surveillance
and regulation of non-customer trading activity generally tends to be
more automated and less labor intensive. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are anticipated to be higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer

component of its regulatory program. As such, the Exchange proposes
assessing higher fees to those firms that will require more Exchange
regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business
they conduct.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The ORF is not charged for orders that clear in categories
other than the customer range (e.g., market maker orders) because
members incur the costs of owning memberships and through their
memberships are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that
go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is
used to help pay the costs of regulation. See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ORF will continue to be equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee increase is objectively
allocated to all ATP Holders. As noted above, the Exchange will
continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to
ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and
fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines
that regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will
adjust the ORF by submitting a fee filing change to the Commission.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee change is
not designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed
change is designed to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory
activities while seeking to ensure that total regulatory revenues do
not exceed total regulatory costs.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \11\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \12\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-09. 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 office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-09, and should
be submitted on or before February 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01970 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P