[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 109 (Friday, June 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34661-34663]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12167]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88986; File No. SR-MSRB-2020-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Waive MSRB Market Activity Fees Related to Transactions With
the Municipal Liquidity Facility Established by the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System

June 1, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on May 28, 2020 the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of a proposed amendment to MSRB Rule A-13 regarding
underwriting and transaction assessments for brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers (collectively ``dealers'') to waive
certain underwriting, transaction and technology assessments (``market
activity fees'') related to transactions with the Municipal Liquidity
Facility (``Facility'' or ``MLF'') established by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Federal Reserve'') (the
``proposed rule change'') as described below. The MSRB has designated
the proposed rule change as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder, which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2020-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, 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 MSRB included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The MSRB is closely monitoring the impact of the coronavirus
disease (``COVID-19'') pandemic on the municipal market and municipal
market participants, including issuers, investors, dealers and
municipal advisors.\5\ The Federal Reserve, noting that ``[t]he
municipal securities market is an important part of the financial
system, which helps provide states, cities, and counties (and their
political subdivisions and other governmental entities) with the
funding needed to provide essential public services to their
citizens,'' \6\ established the MLF, which has been authorized under
Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act.\7\ ``The immediate purpose of
the MLF is to enhance the liquidity of the primary short-term municipal
securities market through the purchase at issuance of Tax Anticipation
Notes (``TANs''), Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (``TRANs''), Bond
Anticipation Notes (``BANs''), and similar short-term notes''
(collectively, ``Eligible Notes'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Wall Street Journal: How the Muni Market Became the
Epicenter of the Liquidity Crisis (April 2, 2020) https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-muni-market-became-the-epicenter-of-the-liquidity-crisis-11585823404.
    \6\ Federal Reserve Bank of New York, FAQs: Municipal Liquidity
Facility (``Fed FAQs'') https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/municipal-liquidity-facility/municipal-liquidity-facility-faq.
    \7\ 12 U.S.C. 343 (1932).
    \8\ Fed FAQs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB continues to monitor announcements by the Federal Reserve
to understand how the Facility will operate in conjunction with MSRB
rules.\9\ The Facility intends to provide a liquidity backstop to
certain issuers through a special purpose vehicle (``SPV''). The SPV
may purchase certain Eligible Notes through a direct sale to the SPV
or, if there is a competitive sale process, the SPV generally will not
submit a bid in the competitive sale process, but instead may agree to
purchase such municipal securities that are not awarded to other
bidders.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Term Sheet
regarding the Facility (May 11, 2020) (``Fed Term Sheet'') https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20200511a1.pdf.
    \10\ See Fed FAQs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information currently available regarding the
operation of the MLF, the MSRB believes that the MLF would be a
customer for purposes of Rule A-13 and, therefore, the underwriting,
transaction and technology assessments under Rule A-13 would be
applicable to dealers' transactions with the MLF. The MSRB recognizes
that dealers are experiencing operational challenges coupled with
unprecedented conditions in the municipal market due to the COVID-19
pandemic.\11\ The MSRB is proposing to waive these market activity fees
for transactions conducted with the MLF. Specifically, the MSRB is
proposing to provide a temporary waiver to dealers for the assessment
of the:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Underwriting fee in the amount .00275% ($.0275 per $1,000)
of the par value pursuant to Rule A-13(c)(i) on the par amount of the
primary offering that is purchased by or on behalf of the MLF;
     Transaction fee on sales to the MLF in the amount equal to
.001% ($.01 per $1,000) of the total par value of sales to customers
that it reports to the Board under MSRB Rule G-14(b), on reports of
sales and purchases, pursuant to Rule A-13(d)(ii); and
     Technology fee of $1.00 per transaction for sales to the
MLF that it reports to the Board under Rule G-14(b), pursuant to Rule
A-13(d)(iv)(b).
    The MSRB intends the waiver to be temporary and to expire at the
same time as the MLF. The MLF is currently scheduled to cease
purchasing Eligible Notes on December 31, 2020, unless the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors and the Treasury Department extend the
program.\12\ The MSRB will waive the market activity fees assessed on

transactions with the MLF by issuing a credit for the amount of the
applicable assessment. The amount of the fees to be waived will be
displayed on a monthly statement as a credit against the gross billing
and netted to indicate the amount due. Consistent with Rule A-13(e),
the amount due is to be paid within 30 days of the sending of the
invoice by the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Federal Reserve Bank will continue to fund the SPV
after such date until the SPV's underlying assets mature or are
sold. See Fed Term Sheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\13\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

be 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
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that dealers' transactions with the MLF will
serve to facilitate the smooth functioning of the municipal securities
market during times of strain resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Providing a waiver of market activity fees resulting from such
transactions will help to provide liquidity for the municipal market
and serve to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market in municipal securities without impacting the
protection of investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest.
    The MSRB also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act \14\ which requires, in pertinent
part, that the MSRB's rules shall provide that each municipal
securities broker, municipal securities dealer, and municipal advisor
shall pay to the Board such reasonable fees and charges as may be
necessary or appropriate to defray the costs and expenses of operating
and administering the Board and that such rules shall specify the
amount of such fees and charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB recognizes that dealers are experiencing operational
challenges coupled with unprecedented conditions in the municipal
market due to the COVID-19 pandemic and believes this temporary waiver
of certain market activity fees will provide some relief. The temporary
waiver would be applicable to a limited number of transactions for a
limited duration, consistent with the operation of the MLF.\15\ The
MSRB believes that the waiver would not materially alter the total
amount of fees collected by the MSRB or negatively impact its long-term
sustainability, thereby continuing to ensure that the MSRB is
sufficiently capitalized to meet its regulatory responsibilities.
Accordingly, the MSRB believes that the proposed waiver of certain
assessments on a temporary basis is reasonable and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Fed Term Sheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \16\ requires that MSRB rules be
designed not to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The goal of the
proposed rule change is to provide relief during the exigent
circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The relief will apply equally
to all dealers and extend for the duration of the MLF.\17\ Accordingly,
the MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \17\ Currently, the MLF is planning to only purchase Eligible
Notes until December 31, 2020. See Fed Term Sheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MSRB-2020-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2020-03. 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 website (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 website 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 MSRB. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2020-03 and should be submitted on
or before June 26, 2020.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12167 Filed 6-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36135-36137]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-D-0705]

Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management; International Council for
Harmonisation; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Q9(R1)
Quality Risk Management.'' The draft guidance was prepared under the
auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly
the International Conference on Harmonisation. The current Q9 guideline
published in 2006 provides a common, harmonized framework for Quality
Risk Management (QRM) that can enable more effective and consistent
risk-based decisions, both by regulators and industry, regarding the
quality of drug substances and drug products across the product
lifecycle. This draft guidance is a targeted revision that addresses
four areas for improvement, including high levels of subjectivity in
risk assessments and in QRM outputs; product availability risks; lack
of understanding as to what constitutes formality in QRM work; and lack
of clarity on risk-based decision-making. The revisions are intended to
update the original Q9 guideline based on implementation experience to
promote improved lifecycle management of hazards and prevent defects,
recalls, and shortages.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by July 15, 2022 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2022-D-0705 for ``Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' are publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper

submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include
the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover
note that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.''
The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which
will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out,
will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made
publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet
and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at
1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding the guidance: Rick Friedman,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4348, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    Regarding the ICH: Jill Adleberg, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6364, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management.'' The guidance was prepared
under the auspices of ICH. ICH has the mission of achieving greater
regulatory harmonization worldwide to ensure that safe, effective,
high-quality medicines are developed, registered, and maintained in the
most resource-efficient manner.
    By harmonizing the regulatory requirements in regions around the
world, ICH guidelines have substantially reduced duplicative clinical
studies, prevented unnecessary animal studies, standardized the
reporting of important safety information, standardized marketing
application submissions, and made many other improvements in the
quality of global drug development and manufacturing and the products
available to patients.
    The six Founding Members of the ICH are the FDA; the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America; the European Commission; the
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the
Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; and the Japanese
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. The Standing Members of the
ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Additionally, the
Membership of ICH has expanded to include other regulatory authorities
and industry associations from around the world (refer to https://www.ich.org/).
    ICH works by involving technical experts from both regulators and
industry parties in detailed technical harmonization work and the
application of a science-based approach to harmonization through a
consensus-driven process that results in the development of ICH
guidelines. The regulators around the world are committed to
consistently adopting these consensus-based guidelines, realizing the
benefits for patients and for industry.
    As a Founding Regulatory Member of ICH, FDA plays a major role in
the development of each of the ICH guidelines, which FDA then adopts
and issues as guidance for industry. FDA's guidance documents do not
establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, they describe
the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as
recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements
are cited.
    In November 2021, the ICH Assembly endorsed the draft guideline
entitled ``Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management'' and agreed that the
guideline should be made available for public comment. The draft
guideline is the product of the Quality Expert Working Group of the
ICH. Comments about this draft guidance will be considered by FDA and
the Quality Expert Working Group.
    FDA is thus announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management.'' The current Q9 guideline
published in 2006 provides a common, harmonized framework for Quality
Risk Management that can enable more effective and consistent risk-
based decisions, both by regulators and industry, regarding the quality
of drug substances and drug products across the product lifecycle. This
draft guidance is a targeted revision that addresses four areas for
improvement: (1) high levels of subjectivity in risk assessments and in
QRM outputs; (2) product availability risks; (3) lack of understanding
as to what constitutes formality in QRM work; and (4) lack of clarity
on risk-based decision-making. The revisions are intended to update the
original Q9 guideline based on implementation experience to promote
improved lifecycle management of hazards and prevent defects, recalls,
and shortages.
    This draft guidance has been left in the original ICH format. The
final guidance will be reformatted and edited to conform with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115) and style before
publication. The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the
current thinking of FDA on ``Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management.'' It does
not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or
the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required for this
guidance. The previously approved collections of information are
subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collection of information
in 21 CFR part 211 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0139.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at https://www.regulations.gov, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, or https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances, or https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents.

    Dated: June 8, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-12919 Filed 6-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29144-29148]
[DOCID:fr19jn09-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0563; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-180-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    A recent design review has been carried out on the F28 Mark
0070/0100 fuel system in accordance with the guidelines related to
FAA SFAR 88 [Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88] (Fuel Tank
Safety Program) and JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] INT/POL/25/12.
The review revealed that under certain failure conditions, prolonged
dry running of the fuel transfer pumps may result in an ignition
source in the centre wing fuel tank. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to ignition of flammable fuel vapors,
resulting in fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
* * * * *
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Fokker service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231,
2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350;
fax +31 (0)252-627-211; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.myfokkerfleet.com.
    For AlliedSignal Grimes Aerospace and Honeywell service information
identified in this proposed AD, contact Honeywell Aerospace, Technical
Publications and Distribution, M/S 2101-201, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix,
Arizona 85072-2170; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
http://www.honeywell.com.
    You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0563;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-180-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that
is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European
Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation
regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed
to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory
standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that
all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport
category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against
explosion risks.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD
are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    On September 13, 1999, we issued AD 99-20-01, Amendment 39-11329
(64 FR 51202, September 22, 1999). That AD requires actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 99-20-01, Fokker has released a new version of
the flight warning computer (FWC) software. (AD 99-20-01 requires
installation of an earlier version of the FWC software.) In addition,
Fokker also released a new version of the software for the
multifunction display unit (MFDU), which is necessary to install before
the installation of the new version of the FWC software. The
installation of the MFDU software depends on prior installation of a
resistor in the thrust reverser indication and control system or
installation of an improved thrust reverser unlock indication relay.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0090, dated May 13, 2008 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    A recent design review has been carried out on the F28 Mark
0070/0100 fuel system in accordance with the guidelines related to
FAA SFAR 88 [Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88] (Fuel Tank
Safety Program) and JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] INT/POL/25/12.
The review revealed that under certain failure conditions, prolonged
dry running of the fuel transfer pumps may result in an ignition
source in the centre wing fuel tank. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to ignition of flammable fuel vapors,
resulting in fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
    To address and correct this unsafe condition, new software
(version V13.55) has been developed for the Flight Warning Computer
(FWC). This software update introduces a decreased time delay of the
centre wing fuel tank low pressure alert from 15 minutes to 60
seconds, to stop prolonged dry running of the fuel transfer pumps.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA Airworthiness
Directive (AD) requires the replacement of the FWC with a modified
unit, incorporating software version V13.55.

    The corrective actions also include revising the airplane flight
manual (AFM) to change certain indications and warnings; installing new
software for the MFDU; and installing a new resistor in the thrust
reverser indicator and control system, or an improved thrust reverser
unlock indication relay. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletins SBF100-31-067,
Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008; SBF100-31-060, dated June 1, 2002;
SBF100-78-016, dated October 1, 1999; SBF100-78-017, dated December 1,
1999; and Manual Change Notification--Operational Documentation (MCNO)
F100-050, dated January 31, 2008. Honeywell has issued Service Bulletin
80-0610-31-0003, dated February 13, 2008. The actions described in the
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 4 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 99-20-01 and retained in this
proposed AD take about 7 work-hours per product, at an average labor
rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $1,593 per
product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently
required actions is $2,153 per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 7 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $5,350
per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD
on U.S. operators to be $23,640, or $5,910 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with

this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-11329 (64 FR
51202, September 22, 1999) and adding the following new AD:

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2009-0563; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NM-180-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 20, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) The proposed AD supersedes AD 99-20-01, Amendment 39-11329.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes, all serial numbers.
    (2) Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 airplanes, serial numbers 11521,
11528 through 11537 inclusive, 11545, 11547, 11553, 11557, 11561,
11562, 11566, 11567, 11571, 11572, 11576 through 11579 inclusive,
and 11581 through 11583 inclusive. All airplanes with these serial
numbers are fitted with center wing fuel tanks.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 31 and 78:
Instruments and Engine Exhaust, respectively.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A recent design review has been carried out on the F28 Mark
0070/0100 fuel system in accordance with the guidelines related to
FAA SFAR 88 [Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88] (Fuel Tank
Safety Program) and JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] INT/POL/25/12.
The review revealed that under certain failure conditions, prolonged
dry running of the fuel transfer pumps may result in an ignition
source in the centre wing fuel tank. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to ignition of flammable fuel vapors,
resulting in fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.
    To address and correct this unsafe condition, new software
(version V13.55) has been developed for the Flight Warning Computer
(FWC). This software update introduces a decreased time delay of the
centre wing fuel tank low pressure alert from 15 minutes to 60
seconds, to stop prolonged dry running of the fuel transfer pumps.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA Airworthiness
Directive (AD) requires the replacement of the FWC with a modified
unit, incorporating software version V13.55.
    The corrective actions also include revising the airplane flight
manual (AFM) to change certain indications and warnings; installing
new software for the multifunction display unit (MFDU); and
installing a new resistor in the thrust reverser indicator and
control system, or an improved thrust reverser unlock indication
relay.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 99-20-01 With No Changes to the
Modifications

Modifications

    (f) Unless already done, within 18 months after October 27, 1999
(the effective date of AD 99-20-01), modify the electrical wiring of
the FWC in accordance with Part 1 or 2, as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-
047, Revision 1, dated March 21, 1997.

    Note 1:  It is not necessary to install computer software
version V10.40 into the FWC, since a later version is available and
is required to be installed by AD 99-20-01.

    (g) Unless already done, concurrently with the accomplishment of
the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD, install upgraded
computer software version V11.45 into the FWC in accordance with
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-051, dated August 15, 1998.

    Note 2:  AlliedSignal Grimes Aerospace has issued Service
Bulletin 80-0610-31-0031, dated May 14, 1998, as an additional
source of service information for installation of the upgraded
computer software version into the FWC.

    Note 3:  Operators should note that Fokker Service Bulletin
SBF100-31-051, dated August 15, 1998, specifies prior or concurrent
accomplishment of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-014 [which
specifies concurrent accomplishment of Fokker Component Service
Bulletin (CSB) P41440-78-04, and prior or concurrent accomplishment
of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-012 and CSB P41440-78-05].
Related FAA AD 99-20-02, amendment 39-11330, requires accomplishment
of these four other service bulletins.

New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance

    (h) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace FWC units having part number (P/N) 80-0610-3-45 and P/N 80-
0610-3-50 with modified units having P/N 80-0610-3-55, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin
SBF100-31-067, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008.
    (2) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD and
concurrently with the accomplishment of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD,
revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the
airplane flight manual (AFM), as specified in Fokker Manual Change
Notification-Operational Documentation (MCNO) F100-050, dated
January 31, 2008. These sections provide alterations, which are
introduced by Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067, Revision 1,
dated April 24, 2008.

    Note 4:  Revisions to the Emergency Procedures and Abnormal
Procedures sections of the AFM, as specified in Fokker MCNO F100-
050, dated January 31, 2008, may be done by inserting copies of
Fokker MCNO F100-050, dated January 31, 2008, into the AFM. When the
information in Fokker MCNO F100-050, dated January 31, 2008, has
been included in general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions
may be inserted in the AFM, provided the relevant information in the
general revision is identical to that in Fokker MCNO F100-050, dated
January 31, 2008.

    (3) After accomplishing paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, no person
may install an FWC having P/N 80-0610-3-45 or P/N 80-0610-3-50,
unless it has been modified to P/N 80-0610-3-55 standard in
accordance with Honeywell Service Bulletin 80-0610-31-0003, dated
February 13, 2008.
    (4) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD,
install software version V12 for the MFDU in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-
060, dated June 1, 2002.
    (5) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the thrust reverser indication and control system in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-
78-016, dated October 1, 1999; or modify the thrust reverser unlock
indication relay in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017, dated December 1, 1999.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 5:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows:
    Item 1. Replacing the MFDU in accordance with Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-31-060, dated June 1, 2002, is not included in the
MCAI; however, this AD includes that action. It is necessary to
install a new version of the MFDU software before installing the new
version of the FWC software.
    Item 2. Modifying the thrust reverser indication and control
system in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016,
dated October 1, 1999; or modifying the thrust reverser unlock
indication relay in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-
78-017, dated December 1, 1999, is not included in the MCAI;
however, this AD includes those actions. It is necessary to do one
of those actions before installing the MFDU software.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0090, dated May 13, 2008, and the service information
in Table 1 of this AD, for related information.

                                          Table 1--Related Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Service information--                     Revision level--                    Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fokker MCNO F100-50..............................  Original.................  January 31, 2008.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-060............  Original.................  June 1, 2002.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067............  Revision 1...............  April 24, 2008.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016............  Original.................  October 1, 1999.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017............  Original.................  December 1, 1999.
Honeywell Service Bulletin 80-0610-31-0003.......  Original.................  February 13, 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 11, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-14410 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60213-60216]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25175]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76009; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adding Definitions
Applicable to Certain Co-location Services and Modifying the Fee for
Users That Host Their Customers at the Exchange's Data Center

September 29, 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 September 18, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to add definitions applicable to certain co-
location services to the NYSE MKT Equities Price List (``Price List'')
and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') and modify
the fee for users that host their customers at the Exchange's Data
Center. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, New Jersey, from
which it provides co-location services to Users.\4\ The Exchange's co-
location services allow Users to rent space in the data center so they
may locate their electronic servers in close physical proximity to the
Exchange's trading and execution system.\5\ The Exchange proposes to
amend the Price List and the Fee Schedule as they apply to co-location
services to add the definitions of User, Hosting User and Hosted
Customer. The Exchange also proposes to modify the fee for users that
host their customers at the Exchange's Data Center, effective January
1, 2016.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62961 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59299 (September 27, 2010) (SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-80).
    \5\ See id. at 59299.
    \6\ As specified in the Price List and the Fee Schedule, a User
that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location service
pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-location fees for the
same co-location service charged by the Exchange's affiliates New
York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 70176 (August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50471 (August 19,
2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-67).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions of User, Hosting User and Hosted Customer
    In 2011, the Exchange changed the definition of the term ``User,''
for the purposes of co-location services, to include any market
participant that requests to receive co-location services directly from
the Exchange.\7\ As described in the 2011 Releases, Users could include
member organizations, as that term is defined in the definitions
section of the General and Floor Rules of the NYSE MKT Equities Rules
(``Members''), and ATP Holders, as that term is defined in NYSE Amex
Options Rule 900.2NY(5) (``ATP Holders'') (Members and ATP Holders
together referred to herein as ``Member Organizations''); Sponsored
Participants, as that term is defined in NYSE MKT Rule
123B.30(a)(ii)(B)--Equities and NYSE Amex Options Rule 900.2NY(77)
(``Sponsored Participants''); and non-Member Organization broker-
dealers and vendors that request to receive co-location services
directly from the Exchange. At the time, the Exchange contemplated that
such definition would encompass Users that would provide, for example,
hosting, service bureau, technical support, risk management, order
routing and market data delivery services to their customers while such
Users are co-located in the Exchange's data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65974 (December 15,
2011), 76 FR 79249 (December 21, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-81) and
65975 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79233 (December 21, 2011) (SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-82) (the ``2011 Releases'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add the current definition of User to the
Price List and the Fee Schedule, without changes from the 2011
Releases, as follows:
    A ``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive
co-location services directly from the Exchange.
    The proposed definition would, consistent with the 2011 Releases,
encompass Member Organizations, Sponsored Participants and non-member
broker-dealers, as well as vendors that provide hosting, service bureau
and technical support, risk management services, order routing services
and market data delivery services to their customers while such Users
are co-located in the Exchange's data center. Any entity that could be
a

User based on the term as described in the 2011 Releases would be
considered a User under the proposed definition.
    The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive change to the
description in the Price List and the Fee Schedule of the Exchange's
billing practice for co-location services received by Users that
connect to the Exchange and one or more of its affiliates, by replacing
the term, ``user,'' with the defined term, ``User.''
    In the 2011 Releases, the Exchange also amended the Price List and
the Fee Schedule to establish a fee applicable to Users that provide
hosting services to their customers at the Exchange's data center. As
described in the 2011 Releases, ``hosting'' is a service offered by a
User to another entity in the User's space within the data center and
can include, for example, a User supporting such other entity's
technology, whether hardware or software, through the User's co-
location space. The 2011 Releases used the term ``Hosted User'' to
describe a customer to which a User provides hosting services.
    The Exchange now proposes to include definitions relating to
hosting services in the Price List and the Fee Schedule, as follows:
    A ``Hosting User'' means a User that hosts a Hosted Customer in the
User's co-location space.
    A ``Hosted Customer'' means a customer of a Hosting User that is
hosted in a Hosting User's co-location space.
    The proposed definition of ``Hosting User'' incorporates the
description of a User that hosts customers in its co-location space as
set forth in the 2011 Releases. For the avoidance of doubt, a Hosting
User must be a User pursuant to the proposed definition of User. Any
User that could be a Hosting User based on the description of a User
that hosts customers in the 2011 Releases would be considered a Hosting
User under the proposed definition.
    The proposed definition of ``Hosted Customer'' would be a customer
of a Hosting User that is hosted in a Hosting User's co-location space,
and would be consistent with the description of the term, ``Hosted
User'' used in the 2011 Releases.\8\ The Exchange proposes to change
the name of the term from ``Hosted User'' to ``Hosted Customer'' to
make it clear that the entities that are hosted are customers of the
Hosting Users that do not, in contrast to Users, have a direct
contractual relationship with the Exchange vis-[agrave]-vis co-location
services. For consistency with this proposed change, the Exchange also
proposes to change the term ``Hosted User'' as used in the ``Hosting
Fee'' set forth in the Price List and the Fee Schedule, to ``Hosted
Customer.'' Since, as noted above, only Users can be Hosting Users, a
Hosted Customer may not provide hosting services to any other entities
in the space in which it is hosted. Other than the change to the name
of the definition, no other changes to the definition are intended and
all current customers of a Hosting User would be ``Hosted Customers''
under the proposed definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``customer of a Hosting User,'' as used in the definition
of a ``Hosted Customer'' would be any person that has a contractual
relationship with a Hosting User to use that Hosting User's co-
location space. There is no limitation on the types of persons who
could be Hosted Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hosting Fee
    In the 2011 Releases, the Exchange amended its Price List and the
Fee Schedule to establish a fee charged to Users of $500.00 per month
with respect to each Hosted Customer (defined as ``Hosted User'' in the
2011 Releases) that a User hosts in the Exchange's data center (the
``Hosting Fee'').
    Effective January 1, 2016, the Exchange proposes to modify the
Hosting Fee to provide that the Hosting Fee would be assessed to a
Hosting User on a per Hosted Customer basis and for each cabinet in
which the Hosting User hosts the Hosted Customer. This approach to
hosting fees is comparable to the structure used by the NASDAQ Stock
Market, Inc. (``NASDAQ'') in its Multi-Firm Cabinets Fee, and would
similarly mean that a Hosting User would be assessed the Hosting Fee
for each Hosted Customer that occupies space in a cabinet.\9\ Thus, for
example, if a Hosting User hosts a Hosted Customer in two of the
Hosting User's cabinets, the Hosting User would be charged two Hosting
Fees, one for each cabinet in which the Hosted Customer is hosted. The
Exchange also proposes to increase the monthly Hosting Fee from $500
per Hosted Customer to $1,000 per Hosted Customer for each cabinet in
which the Hosted Customer is hosted, effective January 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Nasdaq Rule 7034(a) and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 71200 (Dec. 30, 2013), 79 FR 677 (Jan. 6, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-
57). [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is the case currently, Users may independently set fees for
their Hosted Customers and the Exchange would not receive a share of
any such fees.
General
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a Member Organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services) and (ii) use of
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis.\10\ In
addition, a User would only incur one charge for the particular co-
location service described herein, regardless of whether the User
connects only to the Exchange or to the Exchange and one or both of its
affiliates.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of others with access to the Exchange's trading
and execution systems. In this regard, all orders sent to the
Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems through
the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is co-
located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users do
not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to users that have access to the Exchange's trading and
execution systems, although Users that receive co-location services
normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders to, and
receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \11\ See SR-NYSEMKT-2013-67, supra note 6 at 50471. The
Exchange's affiliates have also submitted substantially the same
proposed rule change to propose the changes described herein. See
SR-NYSE-2015-40 and SR-NYSEArca-2015-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between

customers, issuers, broker, or dealers. First, the proposed addition of
the definitions for User, Hosting User and Hosted Customer to the Price
List and the Fee Schedule, would, by their addition to the Price List
and the Fee Schedule, make the application of such definitions more
accessible and transparent. There is no change to the definition of
User. There is no change to the definition of ``Hosted User'' as
described in the 2011 Releases other than to change the name to
``Hosted Customer'' to add clarity to the use and the application of
the definition. The proposed new term, ``Hosting User'' reflects the
description of a User that hosts customers in its co-location space as
set forth in the 2011 Releases. Finally, an entity that could be a
User, a User that hosts customers and a Hosted User based on the 2011
Releases, would be considered a User, Hosting User or Hosted Customer,
respectively under the proposed definitions. The proposed definitions
would be applied uniformly for comparable services provided by the
Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a
national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because by including definitions in the Price List and
the Fee Schedule, the proposed change would provide Users with clarity
as to the availability and application of co-location hosting services
and fees.
    The proposed change to the Hosting Fee would be applied uniformly
for comparable services provided by the Exchange to comparable Hosting
Users and their customers and would not unfairly discriminate between
similarly situated Hosting Users. The Exchange notes that assessing a
fee per Hosted Customer per cabinet is comparable to the approach that
NASDAQ takes to the same type of services in its Multi-Firm Cabinets
Fee.\14\ The Exchange also notes that the Hosting Fee has not been
changed since it was established in 2011. The Exchange believes the
proposed Hosting Fee is reasonable in that the fee is designed to
reflect the expenses and resources expended by the Exchange in
connection with hosting services. In addition, while Hosting Users may
independently set fees for their Hosted Customers, and the Exchange
would not receive a share of any such fees, the Hosting Fee on a per
Hosted Customer per cabinet basis continues to be lower than the fees a
Hosted Customer would pay for co-location space purchased directly from
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in particular, because
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Member Organizations, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. Overall, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change is consistent with the Act because the
Exchange offers the co-location services described herein as a
convenience to Users, but in so doing incurs certain costs, including
costs related to the data center facility, hardware and equipment and
costs related to personnel required for initial installation and
ongoing monitoring, support and maintenance of such services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons above, the proposed change would not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because any market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange
could have access to the co-location services provided in the data
center. This is also true because, in addition to the services being
completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis
(i.e., the same range of products and services are available to all
Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that incorporating the definitions of User,
Hosting User and Hosted Customer into the Price List and the Fee
Schedule, the change to the Hosting Fee and the change to the
application of the Hosting Fee will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in further of the
purposes of the Act because the definitions have been previously filed
with the Commission \17\ and their inclusion in the Price List and the
Fee Schedule will provide further clarity in the application of the
fees. The Exchange believes that the changes to the Hosting Fee will
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in further of the purposes of the Act because they are
designed to reflect the expenses and resources expended by the Exchange
in connection with hosting services and because NASDAQ takes the same
approach to the same type of services in its Multi-Firm Cabinets
Fee.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 2011 Releases, supra note 7.
    \18\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if, for example, they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or if they determine that another venue's
products and services are more competitive than on the Exchange. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, the services it offers as well as any corresponding fees and
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a
self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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-NYSEMKT-2015-67 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-67. 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-NYSEMKT-2015-67 and should
be submitted on or before October 26, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25175 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: Paul Augustine, EPA/ CAMD From: Barry Galef and Jason Lee, ICF Consulting Subject: Impacts of the CAIR SO2 Allowance Allocation Scheme Date: March 14, 2006 One of the commenters to CAIR is concerned that the current SO2 allocation scheme unfairly burdens units that already have FGD controls. To illustrate his point, he provides three example units along with their estimated allowance costs in phases 1 and 2 under the CAIR program. Though the calculation on the cost impact of allowances is correct, the impact excludes the cost of installing and operating FGD controls and the cost of fuel switching. We believe the cost impact needs to include the FGD related costs because these are directly related to the CAIR program. In addition, the cost impact should include the costs borne from fuel switching since a unit with newly installed FGD control would more likely to use inexpensive high sulfur coal. In this memo, we calculate the net impacts of the CAIR program compared to the Title IV by combining the changes in allowance costs, FGD control costs, and fuel costs to find more complete costs of compliance. When the complete costs of compliance, in terms of $/ MWh, are compared among the three example units, the units that already have FGD controls have the least burden to comply with the CAIR program.

ALLOWANCE COSTS OF THREE EXAMPLE UNITS Exhibit 1 summarizes the characteristics of the three example units along with their allowance costs in phases 1 and 2. Example 1 is a scrubbed unit while Example 2 is an unscrubbed unit that plans to install a FGD control by 2010. Example 3 is a recently built unit that already has an FGD. Comparing the allowance costs to comply with the CAIR program in Phase 1 and Phase 2, the units that already have FGD controls in operation ( example units 1 and 3) have significantly larger burdens than the old unit with no FGD ( example unit 2).

EXHIBIT 1. Three Example Plant Configuration under CAIR Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Scrubbed Before CAIR? Yes No No New After Title IV? No Yes Yes Capacity ( MW) 500 500 600 Capacity Factor (%) 70% 70% 70% Heat Rate ( MMBtu/ MWh) 10 10 1 9.8 Generation ( MWh/ Year) 3,066,000 3,066,000 3,679,200 Rate for Determining Title IV Allowances ( lbs of SO2/ MMBtu) 0.35 1.2 0.15 Title IV Allowances 6,439 18,396 0 1 There may be some heat rate penalty associated with installation of FGD control. DRAFT CAIR Allowance Allocation CAIR Phase 1 Allowances ( equivalent in terms of tons) 3,219 9,198 0 CAIR Phase 2 Allowances ( equivalent in terms of tons) 2,254 6,439 0 Annual Emissions, with FGD ( tons) 5,366 5,366 2,704 Allowance Costs Phase 1 ( 5 year total $) $ 8,996,820  $ 16,059,912 $ 11,332,464 Allowance Costs Phase 2 ( 5 year total $) $ 18,024,430  $ 6,211,427 $ 15,658,864 Allowance Costs Phase 1 ($/ MWh) $ 0.59  $ 1.05 $ 0.62 Allowance Costs Phase 2 ($/ MWh) $ 1.18  $ 0.41 $ 0.85 Only example unit 2 enjoys healthy gain of $ 16 million and $ 6 million in the phase 1 and 2 respectively, while units 1 and 3 lose about $ 10 million in phase 1 and about $ 16 to $ 18 million in the phase 2. The bottom two rows of Exhibit 1 show the allowance cost of phase 1 and 2 in terms of $/ MWh. Since each phase lasts 5 years, we calculated the annual costs in each phase and then divided them by the generation values to get the costs in $/ MWh.

Using the number of allowances given to the units under the Title IV in Exhibit 1 and the Title IV allowance prices forecast by IPM, we have calculated the allowance costs to each units under the Title IV. The IPM summary report2 for the Title IV suggests that the prices range from $ 245 to $ 388 during the years 2010 and 2020.3 Exhibit 2 shows how the allowance costs under the Title IV would affect each example units during the phase 1 and 2 years. Example units 1 and 2 would gain ( with the unit 2 having a larger gain) while example 3 would suffer a loss.

EXHIBIT 2. Allowance Costs on Three Example Plants under Title IV Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Allowance Costs Phase 14 ( 5 year total $)  $ 1,468,389  $ 17,838,070 $ 3,701,776 Allowance Costs Phase 2 ( 5 year total $)  $ 1,852,380  $ 22,502,810 $ 4,669,808 Allowance Costs Phase 1 ($/ MWh)  $ 0.10  $ 1.16 $ 0.20 Allowance Costs Phase 2 ($/ MWh)  $ 0.12  $ 1.47 $ 0.25 Calculating FGD COSTS We calculate the cost of FGD control only for unit 2, because it is the only one to install the FGD control specifically for CAIR program compliance. Units 1 and 3 already have the FGD controls so the costs would be borne under the Title IV as well as the CAIR program; thus, the net impact of CAIR on their FGD costs would be zero.

To calculate the cost of FGD control, we import the capital and O& M costs of FGD used in IPM. We assumed the capital cost to be $ 200.47/ kW and the fixed O& M to be $ 9.04/ kW Year. Both 2 The Title IV prices are based on the IPM run 219b_ BC_ 16b. 3 From the IPM summary report, allowance prices 2008 2012: $ 245; 2013 2017: $ 317; 2018 2022: $ 388. 4 For the purpose of comparison to the CAIR program, we kept the terminology of phase 1 and 2 for the relevant years under the Title IV program. DRAFT CAIR Allowance Allocation the costs vary with an economies of scale factor5 of 0.58. The variable O& M cost is assumed at $ 1.7/ MWh. Applying these assumptions, Exhibit 3 shows the annualized capital and O& M costs and the costs in terms of $/ MWh for unit 2 EXHIBIT 3. Capital and O& M Cost of FGD Controls Example 2 Annual Capital Cost $ 12,028,200 Annual Fixed O& M Cost $ 4,520,000 Annual Variable O& M Cost $ 5,212,200 FGD Costs in Phase 1 ($/ MWh) 7.10 FGD Costs in Phase 2 ($/ MWh) 7.10 Fuel Costs under the Title IV and the CAIR We assume that example units 1 and 3 would consume the same type of coal under the Title IV as well as under the CAIR program because they already have FGD installed. Unit 2, however, would switch to inexpensive high sulfur coal because the newly installed FGD would remove most of the sulfur. To calculate the difference in fuel cost between the Title IV and the CAIR program, we assumed that the unit would use either a BA or BB type coal under the Title IV and would use a BG type coal under the CAIR program. 6 Exhibit 4 shows IPM's projected prices for BA/ BB and BG bituminous coal from 2008 to 2022. Applying these prices and heat rate of 10 MMBtu/ MWh, the fuel costs for unit 2 are in the range of $ 10.76/ MWh  $ 13.26/ MWh and $ 10.24/ MWh  $ 12.90/ MWh in Phase 1 and 2 under the Title IV and $ 8.70/ MWh and $ 8.28/ MWh in Phase 1 and 2 under the CAIR program.

EXHIBIT 4. Price of Bituminous Coal7 2008 2012 2013 2017 2018 2022 BA Bituminous Price under Title IV ($/ MMBtu) $ 1.34 $ 1.29 $ 1.29 BB Bituminous Price under Title IV ($/ MMBtu) $ 1.10 $ 1.04 $ 1.00 BG Bituminous Price under CAIR ($/ MMBtu) $ 0.89 $ 0.84 $ 0.81 The Net Impact of the Total Costs Exhibit 5 shows the net impact of CAIR compliance on total costs by combining allowance costs, the cost of installing and operating FGD controls, and the savings of switching fuel. The net cost impacts on unit 2 are greater than for other two units. Thus, in terms of net impacts 5 The capital cost of $ 200.47/ kW is for a unit sized 500 MW. For any other sized units, we apply the economies of scale factor with following equation: capital cost * ( 500/ MW)^ Economies of Scale Factor 6 The BA or BB type coal is a typical low sulfur bituminous coal and the BG type coal is high sulfur bituminous coal. We have calculated the costs based on both the BA and BB type coals because the price difference between the two types are not small. 7 The Title IV prices are based on IPM run 219b_ BC_ 16b and the CAIR prices are based on IPM run 219b_ CAIR_ 16b. DRAFT CAIR Allowance Allocation between the CAIR program and the Title IV, an unscrubbed unit that has been emitting higher SO2 would have a bigger burden compared to units that have already reduced SO2 emissions under the Title IV program. This higher burden is directly related to the fact that CAIR would require the incremental expenses of installing and operating an FGD, while the costs of an FGD are already being borne by the other units in the baseline even in the absence of CAIR. This analysis shows that focusing only on allowance costs gives a misleading picture of the true impacts of CAIR on different facilities.

EXHIBIT 5. Net Impact of the Combined Costs Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Net Impact of the Combined Costs Phase 1 ($/ MWh) $ 0.68 $ 1.18  $ 3.68 $ 0.41 Net Impact of the Combined Costs Phase 2 ($/ MWh) $ 1.30 $ 2.07  $ 4.73 $ 0.60


[Federal Register: March 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 47)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11479-11480]
[DOCID:fr11mr10-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0082; Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-4]

Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Kaltag, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Kaltag, AK.
The amendment of one Area Navigation Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) at Kaltag Airport has made this action necessary to
enhance safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2010-0082/Airspace Docket
No. 10-AAL-4 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-0082/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-4.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the
FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace at Kaltag Airport, AK, to
accommodate an amended SIAP at Kaltag Airport. This Class E airspace
would provide adequate controlled airspace upward from 700 and 1,200
feet above the surface, for the safety and management of IFR operations
at Kaltag Airport.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to revise Class E airspace at Kaltag Airport, Kaltag, AK,
and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently
use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Kaltag, AK [Revised]

Kaltag Airport, AK
    (Lat. 64[deg]19[min]08[sec] N., long. 158[deg]44[min]29[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.6-mile radius of the Kaltag Airport, AK; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
72-mile radius of the Kaltag Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on February 19, 2010.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-5260 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P