[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12537-12542]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05291]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74415; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Additional Order Type Combinations
and Delete Related Rule Text and To Restructure the Remaining Rule Text
in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31

March 3, 2015.
    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 February 19, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or 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 comment on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate additional order type
combinations and delete related rule text and to restructure the
remaining rule text in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31. 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
    On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled ``Enhancing Our Market Equity
Structure,'' Mary Jo White, Chair of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or the ``Commission'') requested the equity
exchanges to conduct a comprehensive review of their order types and
how they operate in practice, and as part of this review, consider
appropriate rule changes to help clarify the nature of their order
types.\4\ Subsequent to the Chair's speech, the SEC's Division of
Trading and Markets requested that the equity exchanges complete their
reviews and submit any proposed rule changes by November 1, 2014.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Mary Jo White, Chair, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Speech at the Sandler, O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global
Exchange and Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014) (available at
www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#.U5HI-fmwJiw).
    \5\ See Letter from James Burns, Deputy Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, to Jeffrey
C. Sprecher, Chief Executive Officer, Intercontinental Exchange,
Inc., dated June 20, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it continually assesses its rules governing
order types and undertook on its own initiative a review of its rules
related to order functionality to assure that its various order types,
which have been adopted and amended over the years, accurately describe
the functionality associated with those order types, and more
specifically, how different order types may interact. As a result of
that review, in 2013, the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change,
which the Commission approved, to update its rules relating to order
types and modifiers.\6\ The 2013 Review Filing did not add any new
functionality but instead enhanced and clarified descriptions of the
order type and modifier functionality on the Exchange. More recently,
as part of its ongoing review to streamline its rules and reduce
complexity among its order type offerings, the Exchange filed a
proposed rule change, which the Commission approved, to eliminate
specified order types, modifiers, and related references.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71331 (Jan. 16,
2014), 79 FR 3907 (Jan. 23, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-92) (Approval
order) (``2013 Review Filing'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72942 (Aug. 28,
2014), 79 FR 52784 (Sept. 4, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-75) (Approval
order) (``2013 Deletion Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to continue its
efforts to review and clarify its rules governing order types. First,
the Exchange has identified additional order types and functionality to
eliminate and proposes to delete related rule text in NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.31 (``Rule 7.31''), as described in more detail below.
    Second, the Exchange is proposing certain non-substantive and
clarifying changes to its rules. As Rule 7.31 has been amended through
the years, additional order types and modifiers have been added as new
subsections to what was the end of the rule text at any given time.
Accordingly, the rule text describes the Exchange's order types and
modifiers in the order in which those order types and modifiers were
added. In addition, when rule text has been deleted and replaced with
references to ``Reserved,'' the subsections have not been renumbered.
The Exchange proposes to provide additional clarity to Rule 7.31 by re-
grouping and re-numbering current rule text, removing references to
``reserved'' subsections, and making other non-substantive, clarifying
changes. In this regard, the proposed rule changes are not intended to
reflect changes to functionality but rather to clarify Rule 7.31 to
make it easier to navigate.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that its affiliated exchanges, New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE MKT LLC are proposing similar
restructuring of their respective order type rules to group order
types and modifiers. See SR-NYSE-2014-59 and SR-NYSEMKT-2014-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Elimination of Additional Orders and Modifiers
    As part of its review, the Exchange has identified the following
additional order types and functionality to eliminate:
     All-or-None (``AON'') Orders: An AON Order is a limit
order that is to be executed in its entirety or not at all. A limit
order marked AON does not trade through a Protected Quotation. AONs are
defined as a type of Working Order, currently set forth in Rule
7.31(h)(1). To

effectuate the proposed elimination of AON Orders, the Exchange
proposes not to include current Rule 7.31(h)(1) in the rule
restructuring, described below. The Exchange proposes to make
conforming changes to Rules 7.36(a)(2)(C) and current Rule
7.37(b)(2)(A)(ii) to reflect the elimination of AON.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to Rule
7.37 to delete references to ``reserved'' and re-number the rule
text accordingly. Current Rule 7.37(b)(2)(A)(ii), as amended, would
be renumbered to Rule 7.37(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Primary Sweep Orders (``PSO''): A PSO is a Primary Only
Order (defined in Rule 7.31(x)) that first sweeps the Exchange's book
before routing to the primary market. PSOs may only be day or IOC, and
may not be designated as GTC or an ISO. PSOs are currently set forth in
Rule 7.31(kk). To effectuate the proposed elimination, the Exchange
proposes not to include current Rule 7.31(kk) in the rule
restructuring, described below.
    In addition, the Exchange has identified additional order type
functionality combinations that would no longer be accepted:
     Reserve Orders designated IOC: Rule 7.31(h)(3) governing
Reserve Orders currently provides that Reserve Orders must be in round
lots and cannot be combined with an order type that could never be
displayed. The Exchange proposes to further specify that Reserve Orders
may not be designated with an Immediate or Cancel (``IOC'') time-in-
force modifier, which would be stated in new Rule 7.31(d)(2) governing
Reserve Orders.
     Inside Limit Orders designated IOC: Inside Limit Orders,
which are currently defined in Rule 7.31(d), are limit orders that, if
routed away, are routed to the market participant with the best
displayed price. If there is an unfilled portion of such an order, it
will not be routed to the next best price level until all quotes at the
current best bid or offer are exhausted. The Exchange proposes to
specify that Inside Limit Orders may not be designated IOC because the
Exchange believes that the IOC time-in-force modifier is inconsistent
with the purpose of an Inside Limit Order, which is to wait for each
price point to be cleared before being executed or routed to additional
price points. This change would be included in new Rule 7.31(a)(3).
     PNP Blind Orders: Rule 7.31(mm) currently specifies that a
PNP Blind order may be combined with an Add Liquidity Only (``ALO'')
Order. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text governing PNP Blind
to provide that a PNP Blind order that is combined with an ALO modifier
may not also be designated Reserve. This change would be included in
new Rule 7.31(e)(4).
    The Exchange believes that by eliminating the above-described order
types and functionality, the Exchange would further streamline its
rules and reduce complexity among the order types offered at the
Exchange.
    Because of technology changes associated with eliminating the
above-described order types and functionality, the Exchange will
announce by Trader Update the implementation date of these proposed
changes.
Proposed Rule 7.31 Restructure
    The Exchange proposes to re-structure Rule 7.31 to re-group
existing order types and modifiers together along functional lines.
    Proposed new subsection (a) of Rule 7.31 would set forth the
Exchange's order types that are the foundation for all other order type
instructions, i.e., the primary order types. All orders entered at the
Exchange must be designated with an identifier associated with a
primary order type, together with such other technical specifications
as may be applicable for a specific order or modifier combination. The
Exchange, therefore, believes that clearly identifying the primary
order types in Exchange rules would provide transparency for ETP
Holders of how to designate orders entered at the Exchange. The
proposed primary order types would be:
     Market Orders. Current Rule 7.31(a) describing Market
Orders and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 7.31(a)(1).
In moving the rule text currently set forth in Rule 7.31(a)(3)(A), the
Exchange proposes non-substantive revisions to delete the phrase
``unless marked IOC'' because Market Orders cannot be designated IOC
\10\ and to capitalize the terms ``Market Order''. In addition, the
Exchange proposes a clarifying change to the second sentence of current
Rule 7.31(a), which currently provides that Market Orders shall be
rejected if there is no bid or offer. Because such rejection is based
on whether there is a contra-side bid or offer (i.e., a Market Order to
sell is rejected if there is no bid), the Exchange proposes to clarify
this sentence in new Rule 7.31(a)(1) to provide that ``Market Orders
are rejected if there is no contra-side bid or offer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the 2013 Deletion Filing, the Exchange amended the
definition of IOC to specify that it is only available for Limit
Orders. See 2013 Deletion Filing, supra n. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Limit Orders. Current Rule 7.31(b) describing Limit Orders
and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 7.31(a)(2). The
Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to capitalize the term
``Limit Order'' in new Rule 7.31(a)(2) and make conforming changes to
references to ``limit order'' in the remainder of Rule 7.31, as
specified below. In addition, the Exchange proposes a clarifying change
to the second sentence of current Rule 7.31(b), which currently
provides that a marketable limit order is a limit order to buy (sell)
at or above (below) the PBBO for the security. Because marketability is
based on the contra-side PBBO (i.e., a Limit Order to buy is marketable
against the PBO), the Exchange proposes to clarify this sentence in new
Rule 7.31(a)(2) to provide that: ``A `marketable' Limit Order is a
Limit Order to buy (sell) at or above (below) the contra-side PBBO for
the security.''
     Inside Limit Orders. Current Rule 7.31(d) describing
Inside Limit Orders would be moved to new Rule 7.31(a)(3). The Exchange
proposes clarifying amendments to new Rule 7.31(a)(3) to replace
references to ``best displayed price'' with references to ``contra-side
NBBO.'' As set forth in Rule 7.37, Inside Limit Orders are priced based
on the NBBO. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that referencing the
NBBO in new Rule 7.31(a)(3) would eliminate the need for a market
participant to review two rules, Rules 7.31 and 7.37, to determine that
the term ``best displayed price'' refers to the NBBO. The Exchange also
proposes to add new text to Rule 7.31(a)(3) to clarify that after an
Inside Limit Order has been routed to a contra-side NBBO, the Exchange
displays the Inside Limit Order at that now-exhausted contra-side NBBO
price while the Exchange waits for an updated NBBO to be displayed. As
provided for in the current rule, once a new contra-side NBBO is
displayed, the Exchange will route to that single price point and
continue such assessment at each new contra-side NBBO until the order
is filled or no longer marketable. In addition, to effect the above-
described proposal to provide that Inside Limit Orders may not be
designated IOC, the Exchange proposes to add to new Rule 7.31(a)(3)(D)
that an Inside Limit Order may not be designated as IOC. Because an
Inside Limit Order may still be designated as NOW, which is a distinct
time-in-force modifier from IOC, the Exchange also proposes to add to
new Rule 7.31(a)(3)(D) that an Inside Limit Order may be designated as
NOW. The Exchange further proposes non-substantive changes to the rule
text governing Inside Limit Orders to separate the existing text into
sub-

sections, which the Exchange believes would make the rule text easier
to navigate.
    Proposed new subsection (b) of Rule 7.31 would set forth the Time
in Force Modifiers that the Exchange makes available for orders entered
at the Exchange. In the 2013 Review Filing, the Exchange grouped its
existing time-in-force modifiers together in current Rule 7.31(c).\11\
As proposed, Rule 7.31(c) would be redesignated as Rule 7.31(b),
without changing the rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 2013 Review Filing, supra n. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to move the rule text governing
NOW Orders, currently in Rule 7.31(v), to new Rule 7.31(b)(5). The
Exchange believes that ``NOW Orders'' are appropriately included with
the time-in-force modifiers because a NOW Order designation provides
for an immediate execution of an order in whole or in part on the
Exchange with the unexecuted portion routed to away markets consistent
with Rule 7.37(d), and the portion not so executed cancelled. The
Exchange also believes that the ``NOW'' designation is more
appropriately described as a modifier rather than as an order, and
therefore proposes to re-name it as a ``NOW Modifier'' and make
conforming changes in other Exchange rules. In addition, the Exchange
notes that it routes orders designated NOW to all available quotes in
the routing determination, consistent with Rule 7.37(d)(2). The
Exchange therefore proposes to delete the references in the rule text
to NOW recipients and replace such references with rule text that
specifies that orders with a NOW modifier would be routed to all
available quotations in the routing determination, including Protected
Quotations.
    Proposed new subsection (c) of Rule 7.31 would specify the
Exchange's existing Auction-Only Orders, which the Exchange last
revised in the 2013 Deletion Filing.\12\ The Exchange proposes non-
substantive changes to the definitions of Limit-on-Open Orders, Market-
on-Open Orders, Limit-on-Close Orders, and Market-on-Close Orders,
which would be defined in proposed Rule 7.31(c)(1)-(4), respectively.
The Exchange further proposes to delete rule text in proposed Rules
7.31(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4), as duplicative of the general
definition of Auction Only Orders in proposed new Rule 7.31(c). The
Exchange further proposes to add to Rule 7.31(c) existing rule text
from these subsections, as modified, that the Exchange would reject any
Auction-Only Orders in securities that are not eligible for an auction
on the Exchange or if an auction is suspended pursuant to Rule 7.35(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 2013 Deletion Filing, supra n. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed new subsection (d) of Rule 7.31 would specify the
Exchange's Working Orders, which are currently defined in Rule 7.31(h).
As noted above, the Exchange proposes to eliminate AON Orders.
Accordingly, [sic]
     Discretionary Orders. Current Rule 7.31(h)(2) would be
moved to new Rule 7.31(d)(1) without any substantive changes to the
rule text (the Exchange would capitalize the term ``Limit Order'').
     Reserve Orders. Current Rule 7.31(h)(3) would be moved to
new Rule 7.31(d)(2) and the Exchange proposes non-substantive changes
to capitalize the term ``Limit Order'' and delete a duplicative use of
the word ``Order.'' To effect the change described above that Reserve
Orders may not be designated IOC, the Exchange proposes to add to new
Rule 7.31(d)(2) that Reserve Orders may not be designated IOC. The
Exchange also proposes to clarify that the existing requirement that
Reserve Orders be in round lots applies to the displayed quantity of
the Reserve Order.
     Passive Liquidity Orders. Current Rule 7.31(h)(4) would be
moved to new Rule 7.31(d)(3). The Exchange notes that Rule 7.31(h)(4)
currently provides that ``[a] Passive Liquidity Order must be
designated as an Inside Limit Order.'' This requirement refers to the
identifier associated with entering Passive Liquidity Orders at the
Exchange. The description of how Passive Liquidity Orders operate is in
current Rule 7.31(h)(4), and proposed new Rule 7.31(d)(3). As noted
above, the Exchange now proposes to separately define the Exchange's
primary order types. In connection with this proposal, the Exchange
proposes to reorganize the description of Passive Liquidity Orders to
delete the separate phrase ``[a] Passive Liquidity Order must be
designated as an Inside Limit Order'' and replace the term ``order'' in
the first sentence of the rule with a reference to ``Inside Limit
Order.'' The Exchange also proposes to clarify that a Passive Liquidity
Order does not route.
     Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders. Current Rule
7.31(h)(5) would be moved to new Rule 7.31(d)(4). The Exchange proposes
to make non-substantive changes to the rule text to make it easier to
read, including adding new subsections and deleting obsolete rule text
and capitalizing the term ``Limit Order.'' The Exchange also proposes
to specify that the primary order type for an MPL Order is a Limit
Order rather than a Passive Liquidity Order because an MPL Order does
not use the Inside Limit Order primary order type (and related
technical identifier). Because a Passive Liquidity Order is by
definition an undisplayed order, and because the Exchange is proposing
to delete reference to Passive Liquidity Order as part of the MPL Order
definition, the Exchange proposes to specify that MPL Orders are
undisplayed. This proposed addition to the definition of MPL Orders is
non-substantive because Passive Liquidity Orders are undisplayed orders
and, thus, the current description of MPL Orders as Passive Liquidity
Orders incorporates the undisplayed functionality of MPL Orders.
    The Exchange also proposes to include new text that explicitly
states that an incoming order marketable against a resting MPL Order
with minimum execution size specifications will not execute against
such MPL Order unless it meets the minimum size restrictions and,
instead, will trade through such MPL Order. The Exchange believes this
additional rule language would provide clarity and transparency that
when an MPL Order also includes a minimum execution size, it may be
traded through by incoming marketable orders that do not satisfy the
minimum execution size condition.
     MPL-IOC Order. Current Rule 7.31(h)(6) would be moved to
new Rule 7.31(d)(5) without any substantive changes to the rule text.
    Proposed new subsection (e) of Rule 7.31 would specify the
Exchange's existing order types that, by definition, do not route. The
order types proposed to be included in this new subsection are:
     ALO Order. Current Rule 7.31(nn) would be moved to new
Rule 7.31(e)(1). The current rule provides that an ALO must be
designated as either a PNP or MPL and the Exchange proposes to clarify
that the reference to PNP includes PNP Blind orders. This proposed
change does not alter any existing functionality associated with ALO
because PNP Blind orders are by definition PNP Orders. The Exchange
further notes that all functionality associated with PNP Orders,
including the ability to be designated ISO, are applicable to PNP
Orders that are designated ALO.
     Intermarket Sweep Order. Current Rule 7.31(jj) would be
moved to new Rule 7.31(e)(2) without any substantive changes to the
rule text (the Exchange would capitalize the term ``Limit Order'').
     PNP Order (Post No Preference). Current Rule 7.31(w) would
be moved to new Rule 7.31(e)(3). Because PNP Orders cannot be combined
with Inside

Limit Orders, the Exchange proposes to delete the following rule text:
``A PNP Inside Limit Order shall not lock or cross Manual Quotations''
when moving the rule text to new Rule 7.31(e)(3). The Exchange proposes
a non-substantive change to the rule text to capitalize the term
``Limit Order.''
     PNP Blind. Current Rule 7.31(mm) would be moved to new
Rule 7.31(e)(4) without any substantive changes to the rule text (the
Exchange would capitalize the term ``PNP Order''). As discussed above,
the Exchange proposes to provide in new Rule 7.31(e)(4) that a PNP
Blind order combined with ALO may not be designated as a Reserve Order.
     Cross Order. Because Cross Orders do not route, the
Exchange proposes to move current Rule 7.31(s) to new Rule 7.31(e)(5)
without any changes to the rule text.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange revised its Cross Order functionality in the
2013 Deletion Filing. See 2013 Deletion Filing, supra n. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tracking Order. Current Rule 7.31(f) would be moved to new
Rule 7.31(e)(6). The Exchange proposes to make the following clarifying
changes to the rule text. First, the Exchange is proposing to clarify
that a Tracking Order is eligible to execute against a contra-side
order equal to or less than the size of a Tracking Order and to specify
that that the size requirement relates to comparing the incoming
contra-side order to the size of a resting Tracking Order, not Tracking
Orders in the aggregate. Second, because Tracking Orders execute at the
price of the same-side NBBO, provided such price is equal to or better
than the price of the Tracking Order, the Exchange proposes to clarify
in new Rule 7.31(e)(6) that a Tracking Order will execute at the price
of the same-side NBBO provided that such price shall not trade through
a Protected Quotation or the price of the Tracking Order.
    Proposed new subsection (f) of Rule 7.31 would specify the
Exchange's existing order types that by definition, include specified
routing instructions. As noted above, the Exchange proposes to delete
Primary Sweep Orders. Accordingly, new subsection (f) would not include
Primary Sweep Orders. The order types proposed to be included in this
new subsection are:
     Primary Only Order (``PO Order''). Current Rule 7.31(x)
would be moved to new Rule 7.31(f)(1) without any substantive changes
to the rule text (the Exchange would capitalize the terms ``Limit
Order'' and ``Market Order'').
     Primary Until 9:45 Order. Current Rule 7.31(oo) would be
moved to new Rule 7.31(f)(2) without any substantive changes to the
rule text (the Exchange would capitalize the term ``Limit Order'').
     Primary After 3:55 Order. Current Rule 7.31(pp) would be
moved to new Rule 7.31(f)(3) without any substantive changes to the
rule text (the Exchange would capitalize the term ``Limit Order'').
    Proposed new subsection (g) of Rule 7.31 would include the
Exchange's other existing order instructions and modifiers, including:
     Pegged Order. Current Rule 7.31(cc) would be moved to new
Rule 7.31(g)(1) without any substantive changes to the rule text (the
Exchange would capitalize the term ``Limit Order'').
     Proactive if Locked Modifier. Current Rule 7.31(hh) would
be moved to new Rule 7.31(g)(2) without any substantive changes to the
rule text (the Exchange would capitalize the term ``Limit Order'').
     Do Not Reduce Modifier. Current Rule 7.31(n) would be
moved to new Rule 7.31(g)(3) without any substantive changes to the
rule text (the Exchange would capitalize the term ``Limit Order'').
     Do Not Increase Modifier. Current Rule 7.31(o) would be
moved to new Rule 7.31(g)(4) without any substantive changes to the
rule text (the Exchange would capitalize the term ``Limit Order'').
     Self Trade Prevention Modifier (``STP''). Current Rule
7.31(qq) would be moved to new Rule 7.31(g)(5) without any substantive
changes.
    Finally, proposed new subsection (h) of Rule 7.31 would describe Q
Orders, an existing order type available for Exchange Market Makers,
which are currently defined in Rule 7.31(k). In moving the rule text,
the Exchange proposes to delete the subsections marked ``reserved'' and
renumber the remaining subsections accordingly. The Exchange also
proposes to clarify in new Rule 7.31(h)(3) that Q Orders do not route.
Additional Proposed Amendments
    To reflect the changes proposed to Rule 7.31, the Exchange proposes
to make conforming, non-substantive changes to Rules 7.35, 7.36, and
7.37, as follows:
     Amend Rule 7.35 to capitalize the terms ``Market Order''
and ``Limit Order,'' replace the term ``Limited Priced Order'' with the
term ``Limit Order,'' and use the terms ``LOC Order'' and ``MOC Order''
instead of ``Limit-on-Close Order'' and ``Market-on-Close Order.'' In
Rule 7.35(e), the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to a
Closing Auction for NYSE-listed securities subject to a sub-penny
trading condition under NYSE Rule 123D, as that condition no longer
exists on NYSE. In addition, because the Exchange does not run a Market
Order Auction in Nasdaq-listed securities (other than of Derivative
Securities Products as defined in Rule 7.34(a)(4)(A), and as specified
in Rule 7.35(c)), the Exchange proposes to delete all references to
Nasdaq-Listed securities and related rule text in Rules 7.35(c)(1)(B),
(c)(2)(B), and (c)(3)(B). Similarly, because the Exchange only runs a
Trading Halt Auction in securities that are listed on the Exchange, the
Exchange proposes to delete references to how Trading Halt Auctions
operate for securities other than those listed on the Exchange, and as
currently described in Rules 7.35(f)(1)(A) and (B), (f)(4)(A), and
(f)(4)(B), and re-number existing Rule 7.36(f)(4)(C) as Rule
7.36(f)(4);
     Amend Rule 7.36 to capitalize the term ``Limit Order'';
and Amend Rule 7.37 to capitalize the term ``Reserve Order,'' use the
term ``ISO'' instead of ``Intermarket Sweep Order,'' replace the term
``Limited Price Order'' with the term ``Limit Order,'' remove
references to the term ``Reserved'' from current Rule 7.37(a) and (b)
and re-number the subsections of the rule accordingly, and update the
cross-reference to the rule cite for Passive Liquidity Orders in new
Rule 7.37(a)(1).
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.36 to clarify how the
Exchange treats non-marketable odd-lot orders that are priced better
than the best-priced round lot interest at the Exchange for purposes of
determining the best ranked displayed order(s) on the Exchange.
Specifically, when disseminating the Exchange's best ranked displayed
orders to either the Consolidated Quotation System (for Tape A and B
securities) or the UTP Plan (for Tape C securities) (together, the
``public data feeds''), the Exchange aggregates non-marketable odd-lot
interest at multiple price points and if they equal a round lot or
more, displays the aggregated odd-lot orders in a round lot quantity at
the least aggressive price at which such odd-lot sized orders can be
aggregated to equal at least a round lot. For example, if the Exchange
has a bid of 100 shares at 10.00, 50 shares at 10.01 and 60 shares at
10.02, the Exchange's best bid published to the public data feeds would
be 100 shares at 10.01. Similarly, if the Exchange has an offer of 100
shares at 10.05, 50 shares at 10.04, and 60 shares at 10.03, the
Exchange's best offer published to the public data feeds would be 100
shares

at 10.04. To reflect this clarification, the Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 7.36(c) to provide that if non-marketable odd-lot sized orders at
different price points equal at least a round lot, such odd-lot sized
orders would be displayed as the best ranked displayed orders to sell
(buy) at the least aggressive price at which such odd-lot sized orders
can be aggregated to equal at least a round lot.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.38(a)(1) regarding
Odd Lots to specify the order types that may not be entered as odd
lots. Currently, Rule 7.38(a)(1) provides that odd lot orders may not
be Working Orders, Tracking Orders, etc. However, to reflect certain
amendments to Rule 7.31, which were not incorporated in Rule 7.38,\14\
and to provide more specificity, the Exchange proposes to clarify Rule
7.38(a)(1) to provide that the following orders may not be entered as
odd lots: Reserve Orders, MPL-IOC Orders, Tracking Orders, and Q
Orders. The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive change to Rule
7.38(a)(2) to remove an extraneous period at the end of the sentence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ E.g., In 2011, the Exchange amended Rule 7.31(h)(5) to
lower the minimum order entry size to one share for MPL Orders. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64523 (May 19, 2011), 76 FR
30417 (May 24, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-29) (Notice of filing of
proposed rule change amending Rule 7.31(h)(5) to reduce the minimum
order entry size of MPL Orders from 100 shares to one share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\15\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\16\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the Exchange believes that eliminating AON and PSO Orders, as well as
reducing specified order type combinations, would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by simplifying
functionality and complexity of its order types. The Exchange believes
that eliminating these order types would be consistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be
harmed and in fact would benefit from the removal of complex
functionality. The Exchange further believes that removing cross-
references to AON in Rules 7.36 and 7.37 would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it would
reduce potential confusion that may result from having such cross
references in the Exchange's rulebook. Removing such obsolete cross
references would also further the goal of transparency and add clarity
to the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed restructuring of
Rule 7.31, to group existing order types to align by functionality,
delete subsections marked ``reserved'', and clarify rule text also
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market by ensuring that members, regulators, and the public can
more easily navigate the Exchange's rulebook and better understand the
order types available for trading on the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that the related, proposed conforming changes to Rules 7.35,
7.36, 7.37 and 7.38 similarly would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market by assuring consistency of
terms used in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed amendment to Rule 7.38 to specify which orders may not be
odd lots provides more specificity to the Exchange's rulebook, thereby
similarly promoting transparency and thus removing impediments and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule
7.36 to specify how the Exchange aggregates non-marketable odd-lot
sized orders at multiple price points that equal a round lot for
purposes of determining the Exchange's best ranked displayed order(s)
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because it provides greater
specificity regarding how the Exchange determines its best bid or offer
for display on the public data feeds. The Exchange further believes
that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system to aggregate such non-
marketable odd-lot orders because pursuant to Rule 7.38(b), odd-lot
orders are ranked and executed in the same manner as round lot orders,
and therefore, incoming marketable contra-side orders would execute
against resting non-marketable odd-lot orders that represent the best
price on the Exchange. Because arriving marketable contra-side orders
execute in price-time priority against resting odd-lot orders priced
better than resting round-lot orders, the Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to display such odd-lot interest on the public data feeds
as the Exchange's best bid or offer if in the aggregate, they equal a
round lot or more. The Exchange further believes that aggregating such
odd-lot orders at the least aggressive price point from among those
odd-lot orders would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market because it represents the lowest possible
execution price (for incoming sell orders) or highest possible
execution price (for incoming buy orders). The Exchange notes that the
incoming marketable interest would receive price improvement when
executing against any odd-lot orders priced better than the aggregated
displayed price.

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 change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather would remove
complex functionality and re-structure Rule 7.31 and make conforming
changes to related Exchange rules, thereby reducing confusion and
making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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-NYSEArca-2015-08 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-08. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-NYSEArca-2015-08 and should
be submitted on or before March 30, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05291 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63861-63865]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1296; Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class B Airspace; Minneapolis, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Minneapolis, MN, Class B airspace area
to contain large turbine-powered aircraft conducting published
instrument procedures at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(MSP), MN, within Class B airspace. The FAA is taking this action to
ensure containment of aircraft being vectored to and conducting dual
Simultaneous Instrument Landing System (SILS) approaches to parallel
Runways 12L/R and 30L/R; aircraft being vectored to and conducting
approaches to Runway 35; and, aircraft being re-sequenced from
approaches to Runway 35 to approaches to Runway 30L. This action
supports the FAA's national airspace redesign goal of optimizing
terminal and en route airspace areas to enhance safety, improving the
flow of air traffic, and reducing the potential for near midair
collision in terminal airspace areas.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 9, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
3 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 Policy 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 February 14, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the Minneapolis Class B
airspace area (78 FR 10564). This action proposed to expand the lateral
boundaries and lower portions of the Minneapolis Class B airspace to
contain large turbine-powered aircraft flying dual SILS procedures and
associated traffic patterns to Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, flying
instrument procedures and associated traffic patterns to Runway 35, and
re-sequencing these aircraft from flying instrument procedures to
Runway 35 to instrument procedures to Runway 30L within Class B
airspace. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposed
action. No comments were received in response to the notice.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) part 71 by modifying the Minneapolis, MN, Class B airspace area.
This action (depicted on the chart in Figure 1--Modification of the
Minneapolis, MN Class B Airspace Area) modifies the lateral and
vertical limits of the Class B airspace to ensure the containment of
large turbine-powered aircraft and enhance safety in the Minneapolis
terminal area. The Class B airspace extensions, located northwest and
southeast of MSP, are expanded by approximately one nautical mile (NM)
further southwest. Several portions of Class B airspace, located west,
northwest, and east of MSP, that are adjacent to the Class B airspace
extensions are lowered by 1,000 feet to 6,000 feet MSL. There are
several changes to the Class B airspace area that is located south-
southeast of MSP. Its outer boundary is realigned by one NM from the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport Distance
Measuring Equipment (DME) Antenna (I-MSP DME) 25 NM arc to the 24 NM
arc. It is lowered by 1,000 feet to 6,000 feet MSL and combined with
the adjacent Class B airspace area located south of MSP. Additionally,
the Class B airspace boundary segment described by the Gopher VHF
omnidirectional range (VOR)/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) (GEP)
160[deg] radial is moved to the GEP 158[deg] radial. These
modifications provide the minimum additional airspace necessary to
contain large turbine-powered aircraft conducting instrument procedures
within Class B airspace.
    Except for Areas A through C, which are unchanged by this action,
the remaining Minneapolis Class B airspace subareas are reconfigured
and realigned by geographic position in relation to the

I-MSP DME antenna. This action modifies three of the six original
subareas (D through F) and adds four new subareas (G through J). The
specific modifications to the Minneapolis, MN Class B airspace area are
outlined below.
    Area A. Area A is the surface area that extends upward from the
surface to 10,000 feet MSL. The FAA is not modifying Area A.
    Area B. Area B extends upward from 2,300 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL. The FAA is not modifying Area B.
    Area C. Area C extends upward from 3,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL. The FAA is not modifying Area C.
    Area D. Area D extends upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL. The southern boundary of the extensions in this area are expanded
approximately 1 NM further southwest. This modification ensures
aircraft flying the southern traffic pattern downwind legs for Runway
12R and 30L instrument procedures are contained within Class B
airspace.
    Area E. Area E extends upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL between the GEP 295[deg] radial clockwise to the GEP 352[deg]
radial and the 20 NM to 30 NM arcs from the I-MSP DME. The lower Class
B airspace floor in this area ensures large turbine-powered aircraft
that require longer distances to descend for sequencing to SILS
procedures to Runways 12L/R are contained within Class B airspace.
    Area F. Area F extends upward from 7,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL between the GEP 085[deg] radial clockwise to the GEP 105[deg]
radial and the 20 NM to 30 NM arcs from the I-MSP DME. The FAA is not
modifying the Class B airspace in this area.
    Area G. Area G extends upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL between the GEP 105[deg] radial clockwise to the GEP 115[deg]
radial and the 20 NM to 30 NM arcs from the I-MSP DME. The lower Class
B airspace floor in this area ensures large turbine-powered aircraft
that require longer distances to descend for sequencing to SILS
procedures to Runways 30L/R are contained within Class B airspace.
    Area H. Area H extends upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL. This new subarea realigns a segment of the boundary from the GEP
160[deg] radial to the GEP 158[deg] radial, realigns a second segment
of the boundary from the I-MSP DME 25 NM arc to the I-MSP DME 24 NM
arc, and lowers the Class B airspace floor throughout the area to
ensure large turbine-powered aircraft flying instrument procedures to
Runway 35, as well as aircraft re-sequenced from Runway 35 to Runway
30L instrument procedures, are contained within Class B airspace.
    Area I. Area I extends upward from 7,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL between the GEP 170[deg] radial clockwise to the Flying Cloud VOR/
DME navigation aid (FCM) 270[deg] radial and the 20 NM to 30 NM arcs
from the I-MSP DME. The FAA is not modifying the Class B airspace in
this area.
    Area J. Area J extends upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL between the FCM 270[deg] radial clockwise to the FCM 294[deg]
radial and the 20 NM to 30 NM arcs from the I-MSP DME. The lower Class
B airspace floor in this area ensures large turbine-powered aircraft
that require longer distances to descend for sequence to SILS
approaches to Runways 12L/R are contained within Class B airspace.
    Finally, this action updates the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
(Wold-Chamberlain) Airport airport reference point (ARP), the Gopher
VORTAC, the Flying Cloud VOR/DME, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport DME antenna geographic
coordinates (latitude/longitude) to reflect current NAS data is
reflected in the Minneapolis Class B airspace area legal description
header. All radials listed in the Minneapolis Class B airspace area
description in this rule are stated in degrees relative to True North.
All geographic coordinates are stated in degrees, minutes, and seconds
based on North American Datum 83.
    Implementation of these modifications to the Minneapolis Class B
airspace area ensure containment of large turbine-powered aircraft
within Class B airspace as required by FAA directives to enhance safety
and efficient management of aircraft operations in the Minneapolis
terminal area.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7,
2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in this
document would be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
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 action modifies the Minneapolis, MN, Class B airspace area to
contain large turbine-powered aircraft conducting published instrument
procedures within Class B airspace, and reduce the potential for midair
collisions. Given the former boundaries and changes in MSP traffic
flows and aircraft descent profiles since the last restructuring,
instrument flight rules (IFR) flights were not contained within Class B
airspace. This amendment restructures the airspace to ensure
containment of these aircraft within Class B airspace, which will
reduce the potential for midair collisions in the terminal area. The
amendment will also reduce controller workload by reducing the number
of Class B airspace excursions. The restructuring accommodates aircraft
approaches on flight paths that were close to the Class B airspace
boundaries, by moving these boundaries slightly. Also, since the last
restructuring of the airspace, the fleet mix has changed from more
rapidly descending aircraft to turbojets with more ``efficient wings''
which require a longer time to descend. To better contain these new
turbojets, the

amendment lowers the floor of the Class B airspace in the areas where
arriving aircraft currently drop beneath the floor of Class B airspace
so they will be contained. The original Class B airspace design did not
contain a portion of one of the Final Approach Courses (FACs) within
the existing Class B airspace and consequently aircraft traveling along
this FAC exit Class B airspace for part of the descent. The final rule
moves the Class B boundary and lowers the floor in this portion of the
airspace so that aircraft using this FAC will be contained within Class
B airspace.
    The FAA expects that these changes will have little impact on
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) traffic as VFR aircraft will have the
alternatives of flying under or over the redesigned Class B or through
it with clearance from air traffic control. The Ad Hoc Committee which
was formed to review the Class B airspace proposal and provide feedback
to the FAA reported most of the proposed changes would have little or
no impact on the aviation community they represented, including non-
participating VFR aircraft, with the exception of the cutout near
Stanton Airfield. The committee did however indicate the proposed
modifications would impact the Minnesota Soaring Club and Stanton Sport
Aviation operations and provided six recommendations to alleviate the
potential impact. Additionally, the FAA held several fact finding
informal airspace meetings. As a result of the Ad Hoc Committee and
informal airspace meeting inputs, the FAA incorporated those
recommendations and comments that supported containment of IFR traffic
within Class B airspace with an expected minimal impact on non-
participatory VFR operations. The FAA anticipates that these
modifications will continue to allow sufficient airspace for VFR
operations in the vicinity of the Minneapolis Class B airspace area.
    In the NPRM, the FAA found that the expected outcome would be a
minimal impact with positive net benefits, and a full regulatory
evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requested comments with supporting
justification about the FAA determination of minimal impact in the
NPRM. The FAA received no comments on the minimal cost determination.
    Therefore, the FAA has 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.
    This final rule is expected to improve safety by redefining Class B
airspace boundaries and will impose only minimal costs. This final rule
is expected to cause little impact on VFR traffic. VFR traffic that
might have been flying in airspace that will be re-designated as Class
B airspace will continue to have the option of flying above or below
the proposed Class B airspace or obtaining clearance to fly through.
This final amendment will not require updating of materials outside the
normal update cycle. Therefore, the expected outcome will be a minimal
economic impact on small entities affected by this rulemaking action.
    In the NPRM, the FAA certified that the proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The FAA solicited comments regarding this
determination. The FAA received no comments regarding this
determination.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in 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
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule, in the NPRM, and
determined that it would have only a domestic impact and therefore no
effect on international trade.
    The FAA received no comments on this determination. Therefore, the
FAA determines that this final rule will have only a domestic impact
and therefore no effect on international 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.

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of 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 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace

* * * * *

AGL MN B Minneapolis, MN [Amended]

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport
(Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 44[deg]52'55'' N., long. 93[deg]13'18'' W.)
Gopher VORTAC
    (Lat. 45[deg]08'44'' N., long. 93[deg]22'23'' W.)
Flying Cloud VOR/DME
    (Lat. 44[deg]49'31'' N., long. 93[deg]26'34'' W.)
Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport DME
Antenna (I-MSP DME)
    (Lat. 44[deg]52'27'' N., long. 93[deg]12'21'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 10,000 feet MSL within a 6 NM radius of I-MSP DME.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 2,300 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an 8.5 NM radius of I-MSP DME,
excluding Area A previously described.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within a 12 NM radius of I-MSP DME,
excluding Area A and Area B previously described.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and
the Gopher VORTAC 301[deg] radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM
arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121[deg] radial; thence
southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 121[deg] radial to the 30 NM arc
of the I-MSP DME; thence clockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP
DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124[deg] radial; thence northwest
along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124[deg] radial to the 20 NM arc of
the I-MSP DME; thence clockwise along the 20 NM are of the I-MSP DME
to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295[deg] radial; thence northwest along
the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295[deg] radial to the 30 NM arc of the I-
MSP DME; thence clockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to
the Gopher VORTAC 301[deg] radial; thence southeast along the Gopher
VORTAC 301[deg] radial to the point of beginning, excluding Area A,
Area B, and Area C previously described.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and
the Gopher VORTAC 301[deg] radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM
arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 358[deg] radial; thence
north along the Gopher VORTAC 358[deg] radial to the 30 NM arc of
the I-MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-
MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 301[deg] radial; thence southeast along
the Gopher VORTAC 301[deg] radial to the point of beginning.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and
the Gopher VORTAC 091[deg] radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM
arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 111[deg] radial; thence
southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 111[deg] radial to the 30 NM arc
of the I-MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the
I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 091[deg] radial; thence west along
the Gopher VORTAC 091[deg] radial to the point of beginning.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and
the Gopher VORTAC 111[deg] radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM
arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121[deg] radial; thence
southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 121[deg] radial to the 30 NM arc
of the I-MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the
I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 111[deg] radial; thence northwest
along the Gopher VORTAC 111[deg] radial to the point of beginning.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and
the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124[deg] radial; thence clockwise along the
20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 176[deg] radial;
thence south along the Gopher VORTAC 176[deg] radial to the 30 NM
arc of the I-MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of
the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 164[deg] radial; thence north
along the Gopher VORTAC 164[deg] radial to the 24 NM arc of the I-
MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 24 NM arc of the I-MSP
DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124[deg] radial; thence northwest
along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124[deg] radial to the point of
beginning.
    Area I. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and
the Gopher VORTAC 176[deg] radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM
arc of the I-MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 271[deg] radial;
thence west along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 271[deg] radial to the 30
NM arc of the I-MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc
of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 176[deg] radial; thence north
along the Gopher VORTAC 176[deg] radial to the point of beginning.
    Area J. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and
the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 271[deg] radial; thence clockwise along the
20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295[deg]
radial; thence northwest along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295[deg]
radial to the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME; thence counterclockwise
along the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Flying Cloud 271[deg]
radial; thence east along the Flying Cloud 271[deg] radial to the
point of beginning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25OC13.012

[FR Doc. 2013-24983 Filed 10-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 55 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14939-14940]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of the Federal Aviation Administration
Written Re-Evaluation, Adoption, and Finding of No Significant Impact
and Record of Decision of Department of Navy's Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Navy's Environmental Assessment for the
Mariana Islands Range Complex Airspace

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
decision to adopt the Department of the Navy's (DoN) Environmental
Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment (EA/OEA) for the Mariana
Islands Range Complex Airspace. In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA''), the Council on
Environmental Quality's (``CEQ'') regulations implementing NEPA, and
other applicable authorities, including the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 8-2, and FAA Order JO 7400.2K, ``Procedures for
Handling Airspace Matters,'' paragraph 32-2-3, the FAA has conducted an
independent review and evaluation of the DoN's Final Mariana Islands
Range Complex (MIRC) Airspace EA/OEA dated June 2013. As a cooperating
agency with responsibility for approving special use airspace the FAA
provided subject matter expertise and closely coordinated with the DoN
during the environmental review process, including preparation of the
Draft EA/OEA and the Final EA/OEA. Based on its independent review and
evaluation, the FAA has determined the Final EA/OEA, including its
supporting documentation, as incorporated by reference, and other
supporting documentation incorporated by reference for FAA's Written
Re-Evaluation and Adoption of Final EA/OEA, adequately assesses and
discloses the environmental impacts of the for Mariana Islands Range
Complex Airspace, and that adoption of the Final EA/OEA by the FAA is
authorized by regulation. FAA included the Written Re-Evaluation as
part of the Adoption and FONSI-ROD because the DoN's FONSI is more than
three years old. Accordingly, the FAA adopts the Final EA/OEA, and
takes full responsibility for the scope and content that addresses the
proposed changes to Special Use Airspace for MIRC.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In December 2012, in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the DoN released a Draft
EA/OEA. The Draft EA/OEA presented the potential environmental
consequences of the DoN's proposal to establish Special Use Airspace to
support Navy training activities that involve the use of advanced
weapons systems. The DoN is the proponent for the MIRC Airspace and is
the lead agency for the preparation of the EA/OEA, and the DoN issued
their FONSI on June 15, 2013. As a result of public, agency, and tribal
comments during the 46-day public comment period from December 20, 2012
through February 4, 2013 on the Draft EA/OEA, and the FAA aeronautical
review process, the DoN, FAA, other federal and state agencies, and
tribal governments have consulted to mitigate concerns while continuing
to meet national defense training requirements. The FAA is a
cooperating agency responsible for approving Special Use Airspace as
defined in 40 CFR 1508.5.

Implementation

    The FAA is establishing Restricted Area 7201A and Warning Areas 11,
12, and 13. The MIRC legal descriptions have been modified to identify
the correct US Territory from the description in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published in the Federal Register (80 FR 51498) on August
25, 2015, and circularization to the public

on September 15, 2015 with Docket 15-AWP-4NR. The revised legal
descriptions do not change the Special Use Airspace request or the
analysis done in the Final EA/OEA and the Aeronautical Study. The
modification to the legal description did not change the area of
analysis; therefore, the environmental and aeronautical analyses are
still valid. The legal descriptions for the MRIC Airspace established,
as noted in this notice, will be published in the Federal Register as a
Final Rule and in the National Flight Data Digest (NFDD) with a June
22, 2017 effective date. A copy of the FAA Written Re-Evaluation/FONSI-
ROD is available on the FAA Web site.

Right of Appeal

    The Written Re-evaluation, the Adoption, and FONSI-ROD for the
changes to the MIRC Airspace constitutes a final order of the FAA
Administrator and is subject to exclusive judicial review under 49
U.S.C. 46110 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which
the person contesting the decision resides or has its principal place
of business. Any party having substantial interest in this order may
apply for review of the decision by filing a petition for review in the
appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals no later than 60 days after the order
is issued in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46110.

    Dated: March 15, 2017.
Richard Roberts,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-05800 Filed 3-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

Date:  7/9/2008

SUBJECT:  Cyfluthrin and beta-Cyfluthrin:  Second Addendum to D331951,
Cyfluthrin/Beta-cyfluthrin – Human Health Risk Assessment For New Uses
on Grasses, Alfalfa, and Sugar Beet Seed and Revised Tolerances on
Cereal Grain Commodities; and D339413, Cyfluthrin and beta-Cyfluthrin,
Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data.

PC Codes:  128831:  Cyfluthrin

                   118831:  beta-Cyfluthrin	DP Barcode:  D354195

Decision No.:  377622	Registration No.:  264-745

Petition Nos.:  7F7200	Regulatory Action:  Section 3

Risk Assess Type:  None	Case No.:  None

TXR No.:  None	CAS No.:  68359-37-5

MRID No.:   None 	40 CFR:  180.436

FROM:  	Douglas Dotson, Ph.D., Chemist

		Registration Action Branch 2

	Health Effects Division (7509P)  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

THROUGH:	Richard Loranger, Ph.D., Senior Scientist

		Registration Action Branch 2

Health Effects Division (7509P)  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

TO:		George LaRocca, RM 13

		Insecticide Branch

		Registration Division (7505P)

The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the Registration Division
that HED recommends in favor of the revision of established or
recommended tolerances for cyfluthrin and beta-cyfluthrin on several
cereal grain commodities.  These commodities are as follows:  barley
bran, oat bran, rye bran, wheat shorts, aspirated grain fractions, field
corn milled byproducts, and teosinte grain.  HED completed a human
health risk assessment for cyfluthrin and beta-cyfluthrin (Memo,
D331951, C. Swartz, et al., 10/23/2007).  In support of this risk
assessment, HED also prepared a residue chemistry summary document
(Memo, D339413, D. Dotson, 10/15/2007).  In both of these documents, HED
recommended in favor of the establishment or revision of tolerances for
cereal grain commodities.  At the time, HED should have recommended in
favor of the revision of the established tolerances for the following
processed commodities:  barley bran, oat bran, rye bran, wheat shorts,
and field corn milled byproducts.  In addition, the commodity teosinte,
grain, was inadvertently left off of the list of commodities for which
HED was recommending tolerances.  HED later prepared a memo and
recommended in favor of a tolerance of 0.15 ppm for teosinte grain
(Memo, D349871, D. Dotson, 2/27/2008).  However, the recommended
tolerance for teosinte grain should have been 0.05 ppm.

A tolerance of 6.5 ppm is currently in effect for wheat, bran.  HED’s
risk assessment of 10/23/2007 (C. Swartz, et al., D331951) recommended
that the wheat bran tolerance be reduced from 6.5 ppm to 0.5 ppm.  This
change was recommended because of the cancellation of the tolerance for
stored cereal grains.  The tolerance for wheat grain is being reduced
from 4.0 ppm to 0.15 ppm.  The wheat field trial data were used to set
the recommended tolerances for the grain of barley, oats, and rye.  The
wheat bran processing factor can also be translated to the bran of
barley, oats, and rye.  As a result, the appropriate recommended
tolerance for barley bran, oat bran, and rye bran is the same as that
for wheat bran, 0.5 ppm.

The tolerance of 11.0 ppm that is currently in effect for wheat, shorts
is also based on the stored grains use.  As the stored grains tolerance
is being revoked, the tolerance for wheat, shorts should be based on the
wheat grain HAFT for the preharvest use (0.17 ppm) and the processing
factor for wheat shorts (2.7x).  As a result, the tolerance for wheat,
shorts should be reduced to 0.5 ppm.

A tolerance of 600 ppm is currently in effect for grain, aspirated
fractions.  As the stored grains tolerance is being revoked, the
tolerance for aspirated fractions needs to be reduced.  HED’s residue
chemistry summary document of 7/15/2005 (Memo, D321638, Y. Donovan)
recommended that the tolerance be reduced from 600 ppm to 150 ppm once
the stored grain uses have been revoked.  HED continues to recommend in
favor of this change.

HED’s residue chemistry summary document of 7/15/2005 (Y. Donovan,
D321638) stated that the existing 7.0 ppm tolerance for field corn
byproducts should be deleted once the stored grain uses have been
revoked.  The reason the tolerance was no longer needed is because
quantifiable residues in this commodity would not be expected after the
stored grain tolerance was cancelled. As the Agency is proceeding with
the cancellation of the stored grains use, the tolerance for corn,
field, milled byproducts should be cancelled.

As stated above, HED has recommended in favor of a tolerance of 0.15 ppm
for teosinte grain (Memo, D349871, D. Dotson, 2/27/2008).  This
tolerance was based on the field trial data for wheat grain.  It has
come to the attention of HED that field corn is a better surrogate for
teosinte. The recommended tolerance for field corn grain is 0.05 ppm.
As a result, the recommended tolerance for teosinte, grain should be
0.05 ppm as well.

The tolerance revisions that are recommended above do not increase the
exposure and risk estimates that were reported in the previous risk
assessment for cyfluthrin (Memo, D331951, C. Swartz, et al.,
10/23/2007).  The recommended tolerance changes result in decreases or
(in one case) cancellation of tolerances.

Table 1 provides the proposed and recommended tolerances associated with
tolerance petition 7F7200.  This list is the same as the list provided
in the previous amendment to the residue chemistry summary document
except that it includes the recommended changes discussed above.

Table 1.  Tolerance Summary for Cyfluthrin and beta-Cyfluthrin

Commodity	Established Tolerance

(ppm)	Proposed Tolerance

(ppm)	Recommended Tolerance

(ppm)	Comments, Correct Commodity Definition

Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, forage	6.0 1	13.0	12	Adequate
grass field trial data are available.

Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay	8.0 1	40.0	50

	Alfalfa, forage	-	5.0	5.0	Adequate alfalfa field trial data are
available.

Alfalfa, hay	10.0	15.0	13

	Beet, sugar, roots	-	0.09	0.10	Adequate field trial data are available

Beet, sugar, dried pulp	-	11	1.0	Maximum expected residues are 0.59 ppm
based on HAFT residues of 0.049 ppm and a 12x processing factor for
dried pulp.

Grain, cereal; Crop Group 15 (except Rice)	4.0	4.0	0.15	Wheat, grain;
barley, grain; buckwheat, grain; millet, grain; oat, grain; and rye,
grain.

4.0	0.05	Corn, field, grain; corn, pop, grain; and teosinte, grain.

4.0	0.05	Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed

4.0	3.5	Sorghum, grain, grain

Grain, aspirated fractions	600	-	150	Stored grain uses have been
revoked.

Wheat, bran	6.5	-	0.5	Stored grain uses have been revoked. A tolerance
of 0.15 ppm is being recommended for wheat grain.

Wheat, shorts	11.0	-	0.5	Stored grain uses have been revoked. A
tolerance of 0.15 ppm is being recommended for wheat grain.

Barley, bran, oat bran, and rye bran	5.0	-	0.5	Stored grain uses have
been revoked. A tolerance of 0.15 ppm is being recommended for wheat
grain.

Corn, field, refined oil	30.0	-	-	The field corn, grain tolerance will
cover residues in corn oil

Corn, field, milled byproducts	7.0	-	-	Stored grain uses have been
revoked.

Tolerance no longer needed.

Rice, bran	6.0	-	-	Stored grain uses have been revoked

Rice, hulls	18.0	-	-	Stored grain uses have been revoked

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, Crop Group 16 (except Rice)	-2
7.0	25	Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and hay, group 16, forage, except
Rice

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, Crop Group 16 (except Rice)	- 3
7.0	30	Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and hay, group 16, stover, except
Rice

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, Crop Group 16 (except Rice)	- 4
7.0	7.0	Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and hay, group 16, straw, except
Rice

Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, Crop Group 16 (except Rice)	- 5
7.0	6.0	Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and hay, group 16, hay, except
Rice

Wheat, forage	5.0	-	-	Crop group tolerance is being established for
Forage of Grain, Cereal, except Rice (Crop Group 16)

Corn, field, forage	3.0	-	-

	Corn, sweet, forage	15	-	-

	Sorghum, grain, forage	2.0	-	-

	Corn, field, stover	6.0	-	-	Crop group tolerance is being established
for Stover of Grain, Cereal, except Rice (Crop Group 16)

Corn, pop, stover	6.0	-	-

	Corn, sweet, stover	30.0	-	-

	Sorghum, grain, stover	5.0	-	-

	Wheat, hay	6.0	-	-	Crop group tolerance is being established for Hay of
Grain, Cereal, except Rice (Crop Group 16)

Wheat, straw	6.0	-	-	Crop group tolerance is being established for Straw
of Grain, Cereal, except Rice (Crop Group 16)

Cattle, fat	10	NA	2.0	Based on the recalculated MDBs for beef cattle
(20.9 ppm), dairy cattle (27.1 ppm) and swine (3.21 ppm) and the residue
data from the available cattle feeding study, tolerances for livestock
commodities can be substantially reduced.

Cattle, meat	0.4	NA	0.10

	Cattle, meat byproducts	0.4	NA	0.10

	Goat, fat	10	NA	2.0

	Goat, meat	0.4	NA	0.05

	Goat, meat byproducts	0.4	NA	0.05

	Hog, fat	10	NA	0.5

	Hog, meat	0.4	NA	0.01

	Hog, meat byproducts	0.4	NA	0.01

	Horse, fat	10	NA	2.0

	Horse, meat	0.4	NA	0.05

	Horse, meat byproducts	0.4	NA	0.05

	Milk	1.0	NA	0.2

	Milk, fat	30	NA	5.0

	Sheep, fat	10	NA	2.0

	Sheep, meat	0.4	NA	0.05

	Sheep, meat byproducts	0.4	NA	0.05

NA = not applicable

1 Regionally restricted tolerances for grass grown in CA, OR, ID and WA.

2 Forage tolerances are established for wheat (5.0 ppm), field corn (3.0
ppm), sweet corn (15 ppm), and sorghum (2.0 ppm)

3 Stover tolerances are established for field corn (6.0 ppm), popcorn
(6.0 ppm), sweet corn (30 ppm), and sorghum (5.0 ppm)

4 A straw tolerance is established for wheat (6.0 ppm)

5 A hay tolerance is established for wheat (6.0 ppm)

.

Cyfluthrin and beta-Cyfluthrin		Barcode:  D354195

Page  PAGE   1  of   NUMPAGES  4


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 41 (Friday, March 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13874-13875]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04807]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9786-5; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0879]

Watershed Modeling To Assess the Sensitivity of Streamflow,
Nutrient, and Sediment Loads to Climate Change and Urban Development in
20 U.S. Watersheds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period and Letter Peer-Review.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 45-day public comment period for the draft
document titled Watershed Modeling to Assess the Sensitivity of
Streamflow, Nutrient, and Sediment Loads to Climate Change and Urban
Development in 20 U.S. Watersheds (EPA/600/R-12/058). EPA also is
announcing that an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review
will select an independent group of experts to conduct a letter peer
review of the draft document. The document was prepared by the National
Center for Environmental Assessment within EPA's Office of Research and
Development and is intended to characterize the sensitivity of
streamflow, nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus), and sediment loading to
a range of plausible mid-21st century climate change and urban
development scenarios. The study also provides an improved
understanding of methodological challenges associated with integrating
existing tools and datasets to assess the potential effects of climate
change and urban development on stream flow and water quality.
    EPA intends to forward the public comments that are submitted in
accordance with this notice to the external peer reviewers for their
consideration during the letter review. When finalizing the draft
document, EPA intends to consider any public comments received in
accordance with this notice. EPA is releasing this draft assessment for
the purposes of public comment and peer review. This draft assessment
is not final as described in EPA's information quality guidelines and
it does not represent and should not be construed to represent Agency
policy or views. The draft document is available via the Internet on
the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and
Publications menus at www.epa.gov/ncea.

DATES: The 45-day public comment period begins March 1, 2013 and ends
April 15, 2013. Technical comments should be in writing and must be
received by EPA by April 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The draft document, Watershed Modeling to Assess the
Sensitivity of Streamflow, Nutrient, and Sediment Loads to Climate
Change and Urban Development in 20 U.S. Watersheds, is available
primarily via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental
Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and
Publications menus at www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper
copies are available from the Information Management Team, NCEA;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you are requesting
a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing address, and the
document title.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov,
by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the
detailed instructions provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information, contact Thomas Johnson, NCEA; telephone:
703-347-8618; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Project/Document

    There is growing concern about the potential effects of climate
change on water resources. Watershed modeling was conducted in 20
large, U.S. watersheds to characterize the sensitivity of streamflow,
nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) loading, and sediment loading to a
range of plausible mid-21st century climate change and urban
development scenarios. The study also provides an improved
understanding of methodological challenges associated with integrating
existing tools (e.g., climate models, downscaling approaches, and
watershed models) and datasets to assess the potential effects of
climate change and urban development on stream flow and water quality.
Study sites were selected to represent a range of geographic,
hydrologic, and climatic characteristics throughout the nation.
Watershed simulations were conducted using the Soil Water Assessment
Tool (SWAT) and Hydrologic Simulation Program--FORTRAN (HSPF) models.

    Simulation results illustrate a high degree of variability in the
response of different streamflow and water quality attributes to
climate change throughout the nation. Results also illustrate
sensitivity to methodological choices such as different approaches for
downscaling global climate change simulations and use of different
watershed models. This understanding may lead to improvements in how
existing models and datasets can be used to assess climate change
impacts on watersheds.
    This report presents a summary of simulation results. The report is
technical in nature but results are of broad interest to water and
watershed managers, urban or regional planners, government officials,
and scientists and engineers interested in the potential implications
of climate change on streamflow and water quality in different regions
of the nation.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2012-
0879, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments;
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752. If you provide comments by mail, please submit one unbound
original with pages numbered consecutively and three copies of the
comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively
with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies; or
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center's Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by
hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered
consecutively and three copies of the comments. For attachments,
provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and
submit an unbound original and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2012-0879. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: December 3, 2012.
Debra B. Walsh,
Acting Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2013-04807 Filed 2-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


ECA FOR THE LABORATORY SCALE INCINERATION TESTING OF TELOMERS Progress Report December 8, 2003 Status: Appendices & Attachments 95 %

EPA Order G 10 %

QAPP Outline F "?" 60 %

Outline: Release Assessment Rpt.

E 0 %

Attachments D 1 3 90 %

Study Protocols C 1 2 0 %

ASTM Stds B 1 ? 75 %

Test Substance A 1 4 % Completed Appendix / Title Status: ECA Document ° Accomplishments:

  11/ 6/ 03 EPA circulates Draft ECA to Drafting Committee   11/ 24/ 03 EPA receives initial comments ° Additional Work Needed   Clarify " Boilerplate Language"

  Differing views in some 7 important areas   Develop alternative language to:

° Convey Test Sponsors concerns ° Simplify without compromising clarity or intent ° Reduce duplicative language, where appropriate Schedule 12/ 22/ 03 Compile draft ECA document with completed appendices & attachments 12/ 23/ 03   1/ 17/ 04 Technical Workgroup comment period 1/ 20 23/ 04 EPA / Drafting Committee resolve comments 1/ 27 28/ 04 Technical Workgroup discussion 1/ 29/ 04 Workgroup recommends ECA to EPA