[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11422-11423]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04193]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0110; FRL-9586-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks (EPA ICR Number 1995.08, OMB Control
Number 2060-0521), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through April 30, 2022. Public comments were previously requested, via
the Federal Register, on April 13, 2021 during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently-valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 31,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0110, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) were proposed on July 3, 2001
(66 FR 35325); promulgated on April 14, 2003 (68 FR 18007); and most-
recently amended on August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44285). These regulations
apply to pushing, soaking, quenching, and battery stacks on both
existing and new coke oven batteries (coke plants) that are major
sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. New facilities
include those that commenced either construction or reconstruction
after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to
assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Coke manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCC).
    Estimated number of respondents: 14 (total).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 23,900 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,950,000 (per year), which includes
$125,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The decrease in burden from the most-
recently approved ICR is due to a decrease in the number of sources.
There is an adjustment decrease in labor hours from the most-recently
approved ICR. This decrease reflects revisions to the number of
existing respondents that are anticipated to reconstruct or close
batteries subject to this standard. This decrease is not due to any
program changes. Since there are no changes in the regulatory
requirements and there is no significant industry growth, there are
also no changes in the capital/startup and/or operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-04193 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51825-51829]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0498; Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-AD; Amendment
39-19465; AD 2018-21-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages not
detected by upgraded flight control primary computer (FCPC) software
standards. This AD requires upgrading certain FCPCs, which terminates a
certain airplane flight manual revision for certain airplanes. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 19, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 19,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0498.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0498; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model
A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25595). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of AOA blockages not detected by upgraded FCPC
software standards. The NPRM proposed to require upgrading certain
FCPCs, which would terminate a certain airplane flight

manual revision for certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to
address Alpha protection activation due to blocked AOA probes, which
could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0246R1, dated April 6, 2018 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200
Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In 2015, occurrences were reported of multiple Angle of Attack
(AOA) blockages. Investigation results indicated the need for AOA
monitoring in order to better detect cases of AOA blockage.
    This condition, if not corrected, could, under specific
circumstances, lead to undue activation of the Alpha protection,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed new
FCPC software standards for enhanced AOA monitoring and,
consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0124 (later revised) [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2016-25-30, Amendment 39-18756, (82 FR 1175,
January 5, 2017) (``AD 2016-25-30'')] to require these software
standard upgrades.
    Since EASA AD 2015-0124R3 was issued, it was identified that,
for some cases, AOA blockages were not detected by those FCPC
software standards. Consequently, new FCPC software standards, as
specified in Table 1 of this [EASA] AD, have been developed (Airbus
modification (mod) 206412, mod 206413 and mod 206414) to further
improve the detection of AOA blockage. Airbus issued Service
Bulletin (SB) A330-27-3222 and SB A330-27-3223 to implement these
mods on in-service aeroplanes. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-
0246 to require a software standard upgrade of the three FCPCs,
either by modification or replacement.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that the
Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Emergency Procedure, as previously
required by EASA AD 2014-0267-E [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-
25-52, Amendment 39-18066, (80 FR 3161, January 22, 2015) (``AD
2014-25-52'')] can also be removed for other AOA sensors and FCPC
configurations. This [EASA] AD revises paragraph (2) accordingly,
also introducing Table 2 for that purpose.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0498.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) expressed
support for the NPRM.

Request To Change Applicability

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) asked that we further restrict the
applicability identified in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD by
including the effectivity in the referenced service information. Delta
stated that operators should be held accountable only for airplanes on
which an airworthiness concern exists, and those airplanes correspond
to the effectivity of the referenced service information. Delta added
that if there are airplanes outside of this effectivity, operators will
incur costs to produce and maintain records for those airplanes,
regardless of whether or not there is an unsafe condition. Delta
asserted that the service information provides a list of production
airplanes that will be, or will have been, delivered with the affected
software.
    We do agree to clarify the applicability. This AD is applicable to
airplanes equipped with certain FCPC and not only to specific airplane
manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs). For airplanes equipped with certain
FCPC, only those that are in a pre-mod configuration as specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD are required to do the upgrade specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD. Airplanes in a post-mod configuration are not
required to do an upgrade; however, they must comply with paragraph (k)
of this AD. Paragraph (k) of this AD prohibits the installation of any
software or hardware of a standard earlier than one listed in table 1
to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD on all airplanes identified in
paragraph (c) of this AD. In order for this installation prohibition to
be effective, airplanes in a post-mod configuration must be included in
the applicability. We are also matching the applicability in the MCAI.
Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Remove Reference to Group 2 Airplanes

    Delta asked that we remove references to Group 2 airplanes from
paragraphs (g) and (k) of the proposed AD, ``Definition of Groups'' and
``Parts Installation Prohibition,'' respectively. Delta stated that
Group 1 airplanes are those in pre-mod 206412, 206413, or 206414
configuration, as applicable; Group 2 airplanes are those in post-mod
206412, 206413, or 206414 configuration, as applicable. Delta added
that Group 2 airplanes are those that do not require modification,
since they are already equipped with the FCPC software; therefore,
those airplanes should be excluded from the applicability since the
unsafe condition does not exist on those airplanes. Delta noted that a
Group 1/Group 2 definition is redundant to the applicability paragraph
because that paragraph defines only those airplanes on which the unsafe
condition exists. Delta also noted that the proposed language in
paragraph (k) of the proposed AD would allow continued installation of
existing hardware/software before the AD effective date and prohibit
removal of the modification after the effective date of the AD.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. Airplanes in Groups 1
and 2 represent the total of the airplanes identified in paragraph (c)
of the AD. Group 1 and Group 2 are defined in paragraph (g) of this AD
to distinguish one from another, for the purpose of identifying the
applicable requirements. Removing the definition of Group 2 airplanes
from paragraph (g) of this AD would not remove Group 2 airplanes from
the applicability. Airplanes in Group 2 may in the future be subject to
the unsafe condition identified in this AD if an earlier standard of
software or hardware is installed on that airplane. Therefore, so that
Group 2 airplanes remain in an airworthy configuration after the
effective date of the AD, paragraph (k) of this AD prohibits the
installation of any software or hardware of a standard earlier than
that listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD. Therefore,
we have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Reference to Later Revisions of Service Information

    Delta asked that we change paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to
allow use of subsequent service bulletins. Delta stated that the FCPC
software standard has changed approximately every two years. Delta
noted that adding the term ``or relative later software standard'' will
allow operators to immediately install the latest software standard
without having to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
    We disagree with the commenter's request. In general terms, we are
required by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations to
either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD
language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as
``referenced'' material, in which case we may only refer to such
material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document
only if the OFR approved it for

``incorporation by reference.'' See 1 CFR part 51.
    To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced
document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise
the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request
approval to use later revisions or later software standards as an AMOC
for this AD under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. We
have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We
have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued the following service information:
     Service Bulletin A330-27-3222, dated February 16, 2017.
     Service Bulletin A330-27-3223, dated June 6, 2017.
    This service information describes procedures for upgrading (by
modification or replacement, as applicable) certain FCPCs. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplanes in
different configurations. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 103 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification/replacement...........  3 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $255         $26,265
                                      = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost
estimate.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-21-07 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19465; Docket No. FAA-2018-0498;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-25-52, Amendment 39-18066 (80 FR 3161,
January 22, 2015) (``AD 2014-25-52''); and AD 2016-25-30, Amendment
39-18756, (82 FR 1175, January 5, 2017) (``AD 2016-25-30'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD; all
manufacturer serial numbers; equipped with flight control primary
computers (FCPCs) having software standard P13/M22 (hardware 2K2),
P14/M23 (hardware 2K1), or M23 (hardware 2K0), or earlier standard.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -
342, and -343 airplanes.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:  The software standards
specified in paragraph (c) of this AD correspond, respectively, to
part number (P/N) LA2K2B100DG0000, P/N

LA2K1A100DF0000, and P/N LA2K01500AF0000. All affected airplanes
should be equipped with this software, as required by AD 2016-25-30.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA)
blockages not detected by upgraded FCPC software standards. We are
issuing this AD to prevent Alpha protection activation due to
blocked AOA probes, which could result in reduced controllability of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Definitions of Groups

    Group 1 airplanes are those in pre-mod 206412, pre-mod 206413,
or pre-mod 206414 configuration, as applicable. Group 2 airplanes
are those in post-mod (206412, 206413, or 206414, as applicable)
configuration.

(h) Upgrade Flight Control Primary Computer Software

    For Group 1 airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date
of this AD: Upgrade (by modification or replacement, as applicable)
the three FCPCs, as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k)
of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the applicable service information specified in table 1 to
paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15OC18.001

(i) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2014-25-52

    For airplanes with an AOA configuration as identified in figure
1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, or as identified in paragraph (m)(2)
of AD 2016-12-15, Amendment 39-18564 (81 FR 40160, June 21, 2016)
(``AD 2016-12-15''), as applicable: Accomplishing the upgrade
required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of
paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52, and the airplane flight manual (AFM)
procedure required by paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52 may be removed
from the AFM.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15OC18.002

(j) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2016-25-30

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (h) of this
AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-25-30 for
that airplane.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    Installation of any software or hardware of a version earlier
than the one listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD
is prohibited, as required by paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this
AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: After modification of an airplane as
required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person

identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0246R1, dated April 6, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0498.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3222, dated February 16,
2017.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3223, dated June 6, 2017.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 23, 2018.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21967 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE DOCKETING FORM NAME OF GROUP: XCEL ( a MN power producer and their contractors from AER)

MEETING_____ SPEECH_____ PHONE CALL___ X__

DATE: 25 August 2004 LOCATION OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL: John Bachmann's office PURPOSE OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL: To clarify questions on EPA modeling of CAIR, especially nitrates, as described in the NODA.

ATTENDEES: EPA John Bachmann Xcel Energy Lee Eberley and Sara Butrymowicz AER Inc. Prakash Karamchandani, Krish Vijayaraghavan and Betty Pun COMMENTS: This was a followup to the meeting on 24 August with Jeff Holmstead ATTACHMENTS ( HANDOUTS): NA


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20129-20131]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09580]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83149; File No. S7-24-89]

Joint Industry Plan; Order of Summary Abrogation of the Forty-
Second Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan
Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation
and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis

May 1, 2018.

I. Introduction

    Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ is summarily
abrogating the Forty-Second Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory
Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and
Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges
Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan'' or ``Plan'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for each of its
Participants. This consolidated information informs investors of the
current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It
enables investors to ascertain from one data source the current
prices in all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves
as the required transaction reporting plan for its Participants,
which is a prerequisite for their trading Eligible Securities. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007), 72 FR
20891 (April 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 5, 2018 \4\ the participants of the Plans
(``Participants'') \5\ filed with the Commission a proposal to amend
the Nasdaq/UTP Plan (``Amendment''), pursuant to Section 11A of the
Act,\6\ and Rule 608 thereunder.\7\ The Amendment, which was effective
upon filing pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) of Regulation NMS,\8\
modified the Plan's fee schedule to adopt changes to the
Nonprofessional Subscriber Enterprise Cap and Per Query Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82938 (March 23,
2018), 83 FR 13542 (March 29, 2018) (``Notice of Filing'').
    \5\ The Participants are: Cboe BYX Exchange; Inc.; Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.;
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.;
Investors Exchange LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq
PHLX LLC; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE American LLC; NYSE National, Inc.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Amendment

A. Amendments to Enterprise Cap

    The Amendment modified the Plan's fee schedule to increase the
Nonprofessional Subscriber Enterprise Cap (``Enterprise Cap'') from
$686,400 to $1,260,000. The Participants stated that as a result of
industry consolidation, the non-professional subscriber base for
entities subject to the Enterprise Cap may suddenly increase, and
whereas before two entities may have benefited slightly from the
Enterprise Cap, a combined entity could achieve a substantial decrease
in fees by using the Enterprise Cap. Consequently, the Participants
stated, the increase of the Enterprise Cap was designed to maintain the
status quo and should not have, in conjunction with the Per-Query Fee
change described below, resulted in an increase of revenue to the Plan
or fees for any particular entity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Participants noted that very few entities take advantage
of the Enterprise Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Amendment modified the Plan to remove a provision
relating to annual increases of the Enterprise Cap after a two-thirds
vote of the Participants. In 2014 \10\ the Participants amended the
mechanism by which the Enterprise Cap would increase, from an automatic
increase based on volume, to a requirement for an affirmative vote of
the Participants. The Participants have not used this mechanism to
increase the Enterprise Cap. The Participants believe that any future
changes to the Enterprise Cap should be filed with the Commission and
subject to public comment. Consequently, the Participants proposed to
delete this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73279 (October 1,
2014), 79 FR 60522 (October 7, 2014) (describing the history of the
Per-Query Fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Amendments to the Per-Query Fee

    The Participants stated that because of the increase in the
Enterprise Cap, there could have been broker-dealers that used the
Enterprise Cap that, without a corresponding offset, could have faced
an increase in fees. To offset the potential fee increase, the
Amendment modified the text of the Plan's fee schedule to reduce the
Plan's Per-Query Fee for broker-dealers with 500,000 or more non-
professional subscribers from $.0075 to $.0025.
    The Participants stated that by implementing a tiered structure for
Per-Query Fees, the proposal was designed to provide an offset to those
firms most likely affected by the Enterprise Cap increase (i.e., those
with a large non-professional subscriber base). Additionally, the
Participants stated that the proposal would align the tiered structures
for Network C with those of Networks A and B.
    Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS,\11\ the
Participants designated the Amendment as establishing or changing a fee
or other charge collected on their behalf in connection with access to,
or use of, the facilities contemplated by the Plan. As a result, the
Amendment was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Amendment
was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 29,
2018.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i).
    \12\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received two comment letters in response to the
Notice of Filing \13\ and a response thereto from the Participants.\14\
In its comment letter, SIFMA stated that the information provided by
the Participants in the Amendment with respect to, among other things,
cost, revenue, and customer data, is insufficient to permit the
Commission to determine whether the Amendment is consistent with the
Act.\15\ SIFMA stated that only the Participants, and not SIFMA or
other market participants, possess the information necessary to

evaluate the Amendment.\16\ SIFMA also stated that, costs, and not
revenue neutrality as the Participants suggest, is the relevant factor
in assessing whether the Amendment is consistent with the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See letters from Melissa MacGregor, Managing Director,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''),
dated April 19, 2018 (``SIFMA Letter''), and Tyler Gellasch,
Executive Director, Healthy Markets Association (``Healthy
Markets''), dated April 30, 2018 (``Healthy Markets Letter''), to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission.
    \14\ See Letter from Emily Kasparov to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated April 27, 2018 (``Participants'
Response''). The Participants responded to the comments received on
this Amendment, as well as on SR-CTA/CQ-2018-01, which amended the
CTA/CQ plan in a parallel fashion.
    \15\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 13 at 1-3. SIFMA also stated
that absent data demonstrating a reasonable relationship between
core data revenues and the costs of collecting and disseminating
data, it is doubtful that maintaining the status quo with respect to
market data fees is consistent with the Act. According to SIFMA, the
governance structure for NMS plans is broken and market data fees
are not restrained by competitive forces, thus maintaining the
status quo with respect to market data fees could impose a burden on
competition. See id. at 3.
    \16\ See id. at 1-3.
    \17\ See id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Healthy Markets \18\ urged the Commission to summarily abrogate the
Amendment on grounds that it is not appropriately justified, is
discriminatory, and is contrary to the original purpose of the
Enterprise Cap. Healthy Markets also stated that the Enterprise Cap
should be eliminated as part of the broader process of modernizing the
UTP fee schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Healthy Markets also commented on other items that are not
germane to the instant filing, such as broader recommendations for
NMS Plans and Securities Information Processor Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Healthy Markets stated that the Participants failed
to support their representations regarding industry consolidation and
noted that the Amendment lacks any detailed justification or
analysis.\19\ In addition, Healthy Markets stated that the
Participants' representation that the Amendment may be revenue neutral
does not demonstrate that the Amendment is consistent with the Act
whose goal is to protect the public interest by, amongst other things,
promoting competition, the reasonable allocation of fees, and non-
discrimination.\20\ Healthy Markets also states that the Amendment is
discriminatory, and that it adds complexity to an already complex
process.\21\ Lastly, Healthy Market stated that the Enterprise Cap
should be eliminated as part of the broader process of modernizing the
UTP fee schedules to simply allow for the non-discriminatory,
consistent access and pricing of public market data.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Healthy Markets Letter, supra note 13 at 3-4.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id. at 5.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Participants stated that the comments received are
misguided or incorrect, and require no further response from the
Participants.\23\ In addition, the Participants stated that market
participants have access to the information necessary to assess the
impact of the Amendment on revenue,\24\ asserting that data subscribers
can readily apply the new fee schedule to their historical usage to
project future usage and thereby determine whether the Participants'
representations concerning the effect on revenue hold true.\25\ The
Participants also noted that only industry associations commented on
the Amendment, and that individual market data subscribers could have
commented on the Amendment had the Participants' analysis been
incorrect.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Participants' Response, supra note 14 at 1-2.
    \24\ See Participants' Response, supra note 14 at 1.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \27\ and Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of
Regulation NMS thereunder,\28\ at any time within 60 days of the filing
of any such amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate the
amendment and require that the amendment be re-filed in accordance with
paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 608 \29\ and reviewed in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 608,\30\ if it appears to the Commission that
such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
national market system or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Commission is concerned that the information and
justifications provided by the Participants are not sufficient for the
Commission to determine whether the Amendment is consistent with the
Act. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the procedures set forth
in Rule 608(b)(2) \31\ will provide a more appropriate mechanism for
determining whether the Amendment is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \28\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \29\ 17 CFR 242.608(a)(1).
    \30\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Amendment raises questions as to
whether the changes will result in fees that are fair and reasonable,
not unreasonably discriminatory,\32\ and that will not impose an undue
or inappropriate burden on competition under Section 11A of the
Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 242.603(a)(1)-(2), 17 CFR 242.608, and 15 U.S.C.
78k-1(a)(1)(C).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that the Participants have provided
sufficient information regarding, or adequate justification for, the
changes described in the Amendment. While the Participants represent
that they used certain data to calibrate the fee changes to achieve a
revenue neutral outcome \34\ none of that data is provided in the
Amendment, nor do the Participants provide any such information in
their response.\35\ The Commission is also concerned that the
Participants provided little information concerning the basis for, the
anticipated revenue effects of, and the effects on market participants
from, the Amendment. The Participants have not provided sufficient
information for the changes to be closely scrutinized for fairness and
reasonableness and the Amendment lacks support for the basis of, as
well as the application and likely effect of, the fees to determine
that the Amendment is not unreasonably discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4 at 13543.
    \35\ See Participants' Response, supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Participants did not provide information to
support their assertion that the increase of the Enterprise Cap is
designed to maintain the status quo and should not, in conjunction with
the Per-Query fee changes, result in an increase of revenue to the Plan
or of fees to any particular entity.\36\ The Participants lowered the
Per-Query fee for firms with at least 500,000 non-professional
accounts. However the filing does not indicate why the Participants
chose to limit the lower fee to firms that have 500,000 non-
professional subscribers. The Participants state that the Amendment
does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate because it is revenue neutral and maintains the status quo.
Because the Participants did not provide the Commission with sufficient
data to support their assertion that the fee change should not result
in an increase of revenue to the Plan or to fees for any particular
entity, however, the Commission is unable to evaluate the Participants'
assertions that the Amendment does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated above, the Commission believes it necessary
or appropriate to summarily abrogate the Amendment and terminate its
status as immediately effective. The Commission believes that the
procedures set forth in Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS \37\ will
provide a more appropriate mechanism for determining whether the
Amendment is consistent with the Act. Therefore, the Commission
believes that it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
national market system or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act, to summarily abrogate the Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).

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

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act,\38\
and Rule 608 thereunder,\39\ that the Forty-Second Amendment to the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan (File No. S7-24-89) be, and hereby is, summarily
abrogated. If the Participants choose to re-file the Amendment, they
must do so pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and the Amendment must be
re-filed in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 608 of Regulation
NMS \40\ for review in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \39\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \40\ 17 CFR 242.608(a)(1).
    \41\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09580 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 92665-92666]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30186]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0240; FRL-9956-65-Region 9]

Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; California; Northern Sonoma County Air
Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits; Correcting
Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule, correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: On October 6, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a final rule in the Federal Register approving certain
revisions to the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District
(NSCAPCD, or the District) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP), and disapproving others. The EPA indicated
in this final action that these revisions would supersede certain older
rules in the California SIP but inadvertently included erroneous
references in the regulatory text. This document corrects the
regulatory text to clarify the replacement of these superseded
regulations.

DATES: This action is effective on December 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3534<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action corrects inadvertent errors in a
rulemaking related to NSCAPCD's rules governing the issuance of permits
for stationary sources. On October 6, 2015 (81 FR 69390), the EPA
published a rulemaking action finalizing approval of three rules, and a
limited approval and limited disapproval of two rules as revisions to
the California SIP. This action contained regulatory text amendments to
40 CFR part 52, subpart F. The amendments incorporated material by
reference into section 52.220, Identification of plan, paragraphs
(c)(461) and (c)(480), and eleven other amendments which indicated the
deletion, with or without replacement, of obsolete regulatory language.
Those amendments deleting obsolete language with replacement in
paragraph (c)(480) erroneously state that they are being replaced by
various regulations in paragraph (c)(481). Specifically, the amendments
at paragraphs (c)(124)(ix)(D), (c)(156)(vi)(B), (c)(162)(i)(B),
(c)(164)(i)(B)(5), and (c)(385)(i)(B)(2) include incorrect references
to (481), when they should be referring to (480). This action adds
regulatory text to correct these references.
    The EPA has determined that this action falls under the ``good
cause'' exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes
agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and
comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is
unnecessary because this action correcting inadvertent regulatory text
errors included in the EPA's October 6, 2016 final rule is consistent
with the substantive revision to the California SIP as described in the
preamble of said action concerning regulations governing the issuance
of permits in NSCAPCD. In addition, the EPA can identify no particular
reason why the public would be interested in having the opportunity to
comment on the correction prior to this action being finalized, since
this correction action does not change the EPA's analysis or overall
action related to the approval of NSCAPCD's revisions to their rules in
the California SIP.
    The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section
553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of
publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an
effective date of less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause find and published with the
rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a
reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final
rule takes effect. This rule does not create any new regulatory
requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare
before the rule takes effect. This action merely corrects inadvertent
errors for the regulatory text of the EPA's prior rulemaking for the
California SIP. For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause under APA
section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date
of publication of this action.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations incorrectly referenced 40 CFR
52.220(c)(481) in 5 instances, when they should have referenced 40 CFR
52.220(c)(480).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation with state
officials as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October
28, 1993), or involve special consideration of environmental justice
related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
    Because this action is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements under the APA or any other statute, it is not subject to
the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General
of the General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in
the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 1, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(124)(ix)(D),
(c)(156)(vi)(B), (c)(162)(i)(B), (c)(164)(i)(B)(5), and
(c)(385)(i)(B)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220   Identification of plan-in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (124) * * *
    (ix) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on July 31, 1985 in paragraph
(c)(124)(ix)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 130 (introductory text, b.1, n1, p5, and s2), and now deleted with
replacement in paragraphs (c)(480)(i)(A)(3) and (4), Rules 220(c) and
230.
* * * * *
    (156) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (B) Previously approved on July 31, 1985 in paragraph
(c)(156)(vi)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 130 (b2, m1, p3, p3a, and s7), and now deleted with replacement in
Paragraph (c)(480)(i)(A)(3) of this section, Chapter II, 220(B).
* * * * *
    (162) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Previously approved on July 31, 1985 in paragraph
(c)(162)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
Paragraph (c)(480)(i)(A)(3) of this section, Chapter II, 220(A).
* * * * *
    (164) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (5) Previously approved on April 17, 1987 in paragraph
(c)(164)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 130 (d1 and s5), and now deleted with replacement in paragraph
(c)(480)(i)(A)(2) of this section, rule 200(a).
* * * * *
    (385) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Previously approved on May 6, 2011 in paragraph
(c)(385)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(480)(i)(A)(1) of this section, Rule 130, ``Definitions,''
amended December 14, 2010.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-30186 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78849]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Concerning Submissions Made During Federal Government
Closures

    Take notice that the Commission is adopting the following practice
with respect to submittals to the Commission during Federal government
closures.
    Effective December 22, 2014, the Commission will not accept
submittals--either in electronic format submitted through ``FERC
Online'' (including through eFiling and eTariff) or in hardcopy
format--when the Commission is closed at the direction of the Office of
Personnel Management or Presidential Executive Order closing Federal
government offices in Washington, DC.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 6, 2014, President Barack Obama issued an
Executive Order closing executive departments and agencies of the
government on Friday, December 26, 2014. The above-described
practice will be in effect that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At such time as the Commission reopens, it will again accept
submittals both in electronic format through ``FERC Online'' (including
through eFiling and eTariff) and in hardcopy format.

    Dated: December 22, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30583 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55521-55523]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22002]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73068; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Rule 2.23 To Specify the Registration and Examination Requirements for
Persons Engaged in Supervisory Activities

September 10, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 28, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 amend NYSE Arca Rule 2.23 to specify the
registration and examination requirements for a [sic] persons engaged
in supervisory activities.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Rules of NYSE Arca govern NYSE Arca Options. Rule
changes proposed in this filing are not applicable to NYSE Arca
Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposes to amend Rule 2.23 to specify the
registration and examination requirements for a person engaged in
supervisory activities as described in Rule 11.18--Supervision.
    Rule 2.23 prescribes the registration and qualification
requirements for individuals performing certain duties on behalf of an
OTP Holder or OTP Firm \5\, including traders and Proprietary Traders.
A ``trader'' is a person who is directly or indirectly compensated by
an OTP Holder or OTP Firm and who trades, makes trading decisions with
respect to, or otherwise engages in the proprietary or agency trading
of securities. The General Securities Registered Representative
Examination, (``Series 7'') is the qualifying examination for
registered traders. A Proprietary Trader, which is a limited
registration category, is any person engaged in the purchase or sale of
securities or other similar instruments for the account of an OTP
Holder or OTP Firm with which he or she is associated, as an employee
or otherwise, and who does not transact any business with the
public.\6\ The Proprietary Traders Examination (``Series 56'') is the

qualifying examination for Proprietary Traders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 1.1(p). The term ``OTP'' shall refer to an Options
Trading Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting approved
securities transactions on the Exchange's Trading Facilities
    \6\ The term ``Proprietary Trader'' does not include a person
who is required to be registered as a Market Maker in accordance
with Rule 6.33 or a Market Maker Authorized Trader in accordance
with Rule 6.34A. See Rule 2.23(b)(2)(C).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66452 (February 23,
2012), 77 FR 12347 (February 29, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-15). An
individual may also register as a Proprietary Trader by passing the
General Securities Registered Representative Examination (``Series 7
Examination'') without passing the Series 56 Examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to set out within Rule 2.23(b)(3) the ways a
person engaged in supervisory activities as described in Rule 11.18--
Supervision may register with the Exchange on Web CRD.\8\ The first way
to qualify is to register as a General Securities Principal. A General
Securities Principal must complete (a) the General Securities Principal
Qualification Examination (``Series 24'') and (b) the Series 7. The
Exchange presently requires persons acting in a supervisory capacity to
be registered as a General Securities Principal and pass the Series 24
and Series 7. This filing serves to codify the existing registration
and examination requirements and does not impart any new obligations on
individuals registered as a General Securities Principal. The proposed
second way to register and qualify as a supervisor would be as a
Proprietary Trader Principal. A Proprietary Trader Principal must (a)
complete the Series 24 and (b) be registered as a Proprietary Trader
pursuant to Exchange Rules as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Web CRD is the central licensing and registration system for
the U.S. securities industry and its regulators operated by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registration in the category of Proprietary Trader Principal would
be a limited principal registration and would not authorize an
individual to supervise non-Proprietary Traders. Therefore, the
Exchange also proposes to specify within Rule 2.23(b)(3) that a
Proprietary Trader Principal would not be qualified to function in a
Principal or supervisory capacity with responsibility over any area of
business or any registered person conducting such a business, other
than that involving proprietary trading.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that OTP Holders
or OTP Firms or their registered persons would have in complying with
the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(c) of the
Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(c)(3) of
the Act,\10\ in particular, which authorizes the Exchange to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for registered
persons of OTP Holders and OTP Firms. The Exchange believes that the
proposed examination requirements for a General Securities Principal
and a Proprietary Trader Principal will help to ensure that a
registered supervisor is competent to perform such supervisory
functions and the registration requirements will result in a General
Securities Principal and a Proprietary Trader Principal being subject
to ongoing training requirements under the Exchange's rules.\11\ The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
because the Proprietary Trader Principal category is limited and
tailored to persons supervising proprietary trading functions and
because other markets already recognize Proprietary Trader Principal
registration and related examination requirements.\12\ The Exchange
also believes that it is reasonable to prescribe the Series 24
Examination as the appropriate examination for both the General
Securities Principal and the Proprietary Trader Principal because the
Series 24 Examination tests knowledge and understanding of supervision-
related rules, including but not limited to rules governing sales
practices, books and records, account suitability, trade review and
trade reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
    \11\ Rule 2.23(d) specifies the continuing education
requirements for registered persons subsequent to their initial
qualification and registration, which consist of a Regulatory
Element and a Firm Element. The S201 Regulatory Element Program is
required for registered Supervisors/Principals.
    \12\ See, e.g., Commentary .08 to Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') Rule 3.6A and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67000
(May 16, 2012), 77 FR 30338 (May 22, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-039). See
also NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX'') Rule 1022(h) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 65056 (August 8, 2011), 76 FR 50279 (August 12, 2011)
(SR-BX-2011-053).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ 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. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change accomplishes these objectives by enabling
individuals to qualify for registration with the Exchange by passing a
qualification examination that specifically addresses industry topics
that establish the foundation for the regulatory and procedural
knowledge necessary for such persons electing to register as General
Securities Principal or Proprietary Trader Principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\15\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe
that registration requirements for a General Securities Principal or a
Proprietary Trader Principal registration will affect intermarket
competition because other markets have adopted similar rules requiring
registration and examination requirements for registered persons
engaged in supervisory activities.\16\ In addition, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will affect intramarket
competition because all similarly situated registered persons of OTP
Holders and OTP Firms, e.g., registered persons maintaining the same
categories of registration, are required to complete the same
qualification examinations and maintain the same registrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \16\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter

time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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 asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
this proposed rule change will make NYSE Arca's rules consistent with
those of the other markets which already have the Proprietary Trader
Principal category of registration and its qualification requirements.
Waiver of the operative delay would also allow the Exchange to
implement the proposed rule change without delay, enabling associated
persons of OTP Holders and OTP Firms who are engaged in supervisory
activities to comply with the registration, examination and continuing
education requirements associated with the Proprietary Trader Principal
registration category in a timely manner, and thus is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest.\19\ Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Commission notes that, with respect to the General
Securities Principal registration category, NYSE Arca states that it
is codifying an existing requirement.
    \20\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-98 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-NYSEArca-2014-98. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-98 and should
be submitted on or before October 7, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22002 Filed 9-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P