[Federal Register: July 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 33265-33267]
[DOCID:fr10jy09-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0295]

Providing Effective Information to Consumers About Prescription
Drug Risks and Benefits; Public Workshop

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER), in collaboration with FDA's Office of
the Commissioner (OC), is announcing a public workshop entitled
``Providing Effective Information to Consumers About Prescription Drug
Risks and Benefits.'' This public workshop is intended to explore
potential approaches that will result in written

prescription drug information for consumers that is comprehensible,
accurate, and easy to access.

DATES:  The public workshop will be held on September 24 and 25, 2009,
from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Written or electronic comments on the posted
information or on the workshop must be submitted to the docket by
November 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  The public workshop will be held at the Hilton Washington
DC/North Gaithersburg, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. Submit
written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD
20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found
in the brackets in the heading of this document. A transcript of
plenary sessions will be available for review at the Division of
Dockets Management and on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
approximately 30 days after the workshop.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mary Gross, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6178, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
3519, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Marsha Holloman, Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6173, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
0731, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In order to make informed decisions about health care, patients
need to have easy access to up-to-date and accurate information about
the risks and benefits of the prescription drugs they take. Currently,
consumers are receiving multiple pieces of written information with
their prescription drugs from the pharmacy, information that is
developed and distributed through various sources. Over the years, FDA
has undertaken a number of initiatives in an effort to ensure that
consumers receive useful written information when they obtain their
prescription medicines from the pharmacy. The following is a short
description of both required and voluntary patient labeling.
    Since 1968, FDA regulations have required that patient package
inserts (PPIs), written specifically for patients, be distributed to
patients when certain prescription drugs, or classes of prescription
drugs are dispensed (Sec.  310.501 (21 CFR 310.501) and Sec.  310.515 (
21 CFR 310.515)). PPIs for estrogens (Sec.  310.515) and oral
contraceptives (Sec.  310.501) are FDA-approved and are considered part
of the product labeling. They must be given to the patient when the
product is dispensed. Other PPIs are submitted to FDA voluntarily by
manufacturers and approved by FDA, but their distribution is not
mandated by regulation. For example, many PPIs have been submitted to
the agency for review in response to the FDA draft guidance entitled
``Brief Summary: Disclosing Risk Information in Consumer-Directed Print
Advertisements'' issued in April 2001. Under the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA), FDA can require a PPI as part of
a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS).
    Medication Guides are patient labeling (21 CFR part 208) and
accompany those drugs deemed by the agency to have serious and
significant risks. Medication Guides address issues that are specific
to particular drugs or in some cases, drug classes, and they contain
FDA-approved information that can help patients avoid serious adverse
reactions. Medication Guides are developed by manufacturers and
reviewed by FDA and they are required to be distributed by pharmacies
with each prescription. In the Federal Register of August 24, 1995 (60
FR 44182), FDA published a proposed rule entitled ``Prescription Drug
Product Labeling: Medication Guide Requirements.'' In the Federal
Register of December 1, 1998 (63 FR 66378), the final rule with the
same title was published. On June 12 and 13, 2007, a public meeting
entitled ``Use of Medication Guides to Distribute Drug Risk Information
to Patients'' was held. The public testified that the Medication Guide
distribution process needed improvement including providing a means for
electronic printing, waiving certain format requirements and ensuring
that a complete list of Medication Guides were posted in a central
location on the Web. Some expressed the view that Medication Guides
should be shorter and easier to read. Finally, comments indicated that
the sources of patient information should be consolidated into a single
document.
    In September 2007, Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act and included Medication Guides as one potential element of
a REMS. FDA may require a sponsor to develop a REMS if it determines a
REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh the
risks. Between September 2007 when FDAAA was enacted and May 31, 2009,
FDA has approved 50 REMS with Medication Guides, including 43 REMS that
consisted only of a Medication Guide and a timetable for assessment of
the REMS. The use of Medication Guides as part of REMS, particularly as
part of REMS that affect whole classes of drugs, has provided further
impetus to evaluate different approaches to providing the type of
prescription drug information that is normally provided in a Medication
Guide to consumers.
    Consumer Medication Information (CMI) is based on Public Law 104-
180. Under Public Law 104-180, prescription drug information is
developed and distributed by the private sector and the development of
this information is voluntary. Public Law 104-180 adopted certain goals
and timeframes consistent with FDA's proposed rule (60 FR 44182) which
were:
     By the year 2000, 75 percent of people receiving new
prescriptions would receive ``useful'' patient information with their
prescriptions; and
     By the year 2006, 95 percent of people receiving new
prescriptions would receive ``useful'' written patient information with
their prescriptions.
    FDA was charged with evaluating the private sector's progress in
meeting these goals and to establish guidelines for usefulness
criteria. By passing this legislation, FDA was also enjoined from
further rulemaking that would require patient information for all
prescription drugs, so long as these goals were met within specified
timeframes.
    CMI has failed to meet the statutory goals based on two independent
evaluations performed in 2001 and 2008. In the 2001 evaluation, 89
percent of patients received some form of information, with 50 percent
of this information determined to be useful. On July 6, 2006, FDA
issued a guidance entitled ``Useful Written Consumer Medication
Information (CMI).'' The second CMI evaluation, conducted in 2008,
found that patients received information 94 percent of the time, but
only 75 percent of that information was deemed useful, missing the goal
set out in Public Law 104-180 that 95 percent of consumers would
receive useful prescription drug information by 2006.
    With a CMI effort that does not meet Congressional goals and
reports indicating that many patients may not be understanding (or even
receiving) Medication Guides from the pharmacy, FDA is reexamining the
current process whereby prescription drug information is developed and
disseminated to patients.

    By September 21, 2009, FDA will post the following information:
     Workshop agenda;
     FDA Issues Paper that describes past history, current
challenges, and possible approaches to improve the current system;
     A series of prototypes that explore different written
approaches to conveying prescription drug information to consumers; and
     A list of FDA speakers, invited workshop participants, and
meeting registrants.
    This public workshop is intended to explore potential approaches
that will result in written prescription drug information that is
comprehensible, accurate, and more easily accessible to consumers. The
purpose of this public workshop is to assemble stakeholder groups to
determine appropriate steps towards improving the content, format,
distribution, and evaluation of patient information.
    Registration: To register for the meeting either: (1) Mail your
registration information to one of the contact persons (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or (2) e-mail your registration information to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Registration information should
include registrant name, company or organization, address, phone
number, and e-address. Registration requests should be received by
August 17, 2009. Registration is free. Seats are limited. FDA may limit
the numbers of participants from each organization based on space
limitations. Registrants will receive confirmation once they have been
accepted for participation in the workshop. Onsite registration on the
day of the meeting will be based on space availability on the day of
the event starting at 7:30 a.m. If registration reaches maximum
capacity, FDA will post a notice closing meeting registration for the
workshop at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm168106.htm. If you
need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Mary
Gross or Marsha Holloman (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least
7 days in advance.

    Dated:July 2, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-16335 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50641-50642]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR14-49-000.
    Applicants: DCP Raptor Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: DCP Raptor Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing per
284.123(b)(2) +: Raptor Rate Case to be effective 9/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140813-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/14.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1185-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Petition of Viking Gas Transmission Company for
Approval of Settlement.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/14.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1844-002.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance to Settlement--Deferred Account.
    Filed Date: 8/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140814-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-685-002.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Motion to Place IWS Tariff Records into Effect to be
effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140815-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/14.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by

clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 18, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20095 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 40 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12305-12308]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0156; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-003-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Model Z-242L airplanes that would supersede AD 2003-
11-12. 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 need to
incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 9, of
the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual) to
impose new or more restrictive life limits on critical components. We
are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 17, 2017.

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

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s., Leti[scaron]t[ecaron] 1887, 765 02 Otrokovice,
Czech Republic, telephone: +420 725 266 711; fax: +420 226 013 830;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.zlinaircraft.eu. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

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-2017-
0156; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 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
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2017-0156;
Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-003-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://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

    On May 22, 2003, we issued AD 2003-11-12, Amendment 39-13171 (68 FR
32629, June 2, 2003) (``AD 2003-11-12''). That AD required actions
intended to address an unsafe condition on ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Model Z-
242L airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country.
    Since we issued AD 2003-11-12, a revision to the airworthiness
limitations chapter of the aircraft maintenance manual has been issued,
and the State of Design airworthiness authority took AD action, as
identified below.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2017-0005, dated January 10, 2017 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for the Zlin Aircraft a.s. Z 242 L
aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are defined and published in
Chapter 9 of Zlin Aircraft a.s. Z 242 L Maintenance Manual (MM)--
Volume I Document 003.021.1 (in Czech language) or in Chapter 9 of Z
242 L MM--Volume I Document 003.22.1 (in English language). These
instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued
airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    Zlin Aircraft a.s. recently published Revision 22 to Chapter 9,
Volume I, of the Z 242 L MM, introducing new and/or more restrictive
limitations.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires accomplishment
of the actions specified in the Zlin Aircraft a.s. Z 242 L MM
Chapter 9, Volume I, at Revision 22.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0156.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. has issued Z 242 L DOC. No. 003.22.1 Maintenance
Manual--Vol. I. Chapter 9, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision No. 22,
dated March 15, 2016. The revision to the Limitations sections
introduces new and/or more restrictive safe life limits for the Model Z
242 airplane. 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 of this
NPRM.

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 this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 30 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the proposed requirement to incorporate the new
revision into the Limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance
program (e.g., maintenance manual). The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of
this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,550, or $85 per product.
    The above costs only account for the time to incorporate the
document into the Limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance
program. These proposed limitations would impose more restrictive life
limits on some parts and provide new life limits for others. While the
cost of these proposed replacements could be expensive, they would only
be required to operate the airplane past the established times.
Ultimately, the proposed estimated cost of replacing all life-limited
parts could come close to the cost of the airplane. These proposed life
limits are necessary to continue to operate the airplane in an
airworthy manner.

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),
    (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.

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

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 removing Amendment 39-13171 (68 FR
32629, June 2, 2003), and adding the following new AD:

ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. (type certificate previously held by MORAVAN
a.s.): Docket No. FAA-2017-0156; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-003-
AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 17, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2003-11-12, Amendment 39-13171 (68 FR 32629,
June 2, 2003) (``AD 2003-11-12'')

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Model Z-242L airplanes,
all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by 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 need to
incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 9,
of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual).
We are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the wing due
to fatigue cracking. Such failure could result in a wing separating
from the airplane with consequent loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) For all affected airplanes: As of March 21, 2003 (the
effective date of AD 2003-03-13 (68 FR 4905, January 21, 2003)),
annotate Acrobatic and Utility category operational time in the
logbook. If the airplane is utilized in either of these categories
at any time during a flight, annotate the total time for that flight
in the Utility or Acrobatic category, as appropriate. Do the logbook
annotation following the procedures in Moravan Mandatory Service
Bulletin Z 242L/37a (Z 142C/17a), Rev. 1, dated October 31, 2000;
and Moravan Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 242L/38a (Z142C/18a)--Rev.
1, April 15, 2003. The owner/operator holding at least a private
pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 may do this action.
    (2) For airplane serial numbers 0001 through 0656 that do not
have strengthened wings installed (both left and right side) in
accordance with Moravan Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 242L/27a--Rev
2. dated April 15, 2003, or Rev. 1, dated October 31, 2000:
    (i) On or before 10 days after June 5, 2003 (the effective date
of AD 2003-11-12), incorporate aerobatic frequency information into
the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) as
specified in Moravan Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 242L/38a--Rev. 1,
dated April 15, 2003. The owner/operator holding at least a private
pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 may do this action.
Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with
these portions of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
    (ii) On or before reaching 190 hours time-in-service in the
Acrobatic category and/or Utility category or on or before 90 days
after March 21, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-03-13 (68 FR
4905, January 21, 2003)), whichever occurs later, insert the
following information into the Limitations section of the airplane
flight manual (AFM): ``Do not operate in the Acrobatic or Utility
category. Operate in the Normal category only.''
    The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate
as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR 43.7) may accomplish this AFM insertion of this AD. Make an
entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with these
portions of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). This operational restriction is
referenced in Moravan Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 242L/37a (Z 142C/
17a), Rev. 1, dated October 31, 2000.
    (3) For airplane serial numbers 0657 or higher or one in the
range of 0001 through 0656 that has strengthened wings (both left
and right side) installed in accordance with Moravan Mandatory
Service Bulletin Z 242L/27a--Rev. 1, dated October 31, 2000, or Rev.
2, dated April 15, 2003: On or before 10 days after June 5, 2003
(the effective date of AD 2003-11-12), incorporate aerobatic
frequency information into the Limitations section of the airplane
flight manual (AFM) as specified in Moravan Mandatory Service
Bulletin Z 242L/38a--Rev. 1, dated April 15, 2003. The owner/
operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized
by section 43.7 may do this action. Make an entry into the aircraft
records showing compliance with these portions of the AD in
accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 43.9).
    (4) For all affected airplanes: Within 10 days after the
effective date of this AD, insert Chapter 9, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision No. 22, dated March 15, 2016, of ZLIN AIRCRAFT
a.s. Z 242 L, Doc, No. 003.002.1 Maintenance Manual--Vol. I into the
Limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g.,
maintenance manual). The owner/operator holding at least a private
pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may accomplish this maintenance
manual insertion requirement of this AD. Make an entry into the
aircraft records showing compliance with these portions of the AD in
accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 43.9). If a discrepancy is found during the accomplishment of
any of the actions required by the document listed in this
paragraph, before further flight after finding such discrepancy,
contact ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. at the address specified in paragraph (h)
of this AD for an FAA-approved repair scheme and incorporate that
repair scheme.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, 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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (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.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2017-0005, dated January 10, 2017, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0156. For service
information related to this AD, contact ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s.,
Leti[scaron]t[ecaron] 1887, 765 02 Otrokovice, Czech Republic,
telephone: +420 725 266 711; fax: +420 226 013 830; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.zlinaircraft.eu. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 17, 2017.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-03965 Filed 3-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18524]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-91]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0333]

Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee
(DRBOSAC) will meet in Philadelphia, PA to discuss and approve
DRBOSAC's report on oil spill prevention and response strategies for
the Delaware River and Bay. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 28, 2010, from 10
a.m. to 4 p.m. This meeting may close early if all business is
finished. Written material, requests to make oral presentations, and
requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of
the committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before April 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at John Heinz Wildlife Refuge
(Multi-purpose room), 8601 Lindbergh Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19153.
Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Gerald
Conrad, Liaison to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the DRBOSAC,
at the address above. This notice and any documents identified in the
Supplementary Information section as being available in the docket may
be viewed online, at http://www.regulations.gov, using docket number
USCG-2008-0333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald Conrad, Liaison to the DFO of
the DRBOSAC, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Agenda of the Meeting

    The agenda for the April 28 meeting is as follows:
    (1) Opening comments.
    (2) Administrative announcements.
    (3) Introductions.
    (4) Pre-approved presentations from the public.
    (5) Debriefs from each DRBOSAC Sub-committee.
    (6) Public comments.
    (7) Committee recommendation(s) discussion.
    (8) Future Committee business.
    (9) Closing.
    More information and detail on the meeting will be available at the
committee Web site, located at https://homeport.uscg.mil/drbosac.
Additional detail may be added to the agenda up to April 26, 2010.

Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public. All persons entering the
building will have to present identification and may be subject to
screening. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business
is finished.
    The public will be able to make oral presentations during the
meeting when given the opportunity to do so. Members of the public may
seek pre-approval for their oral presentations by contacting the Coast
Guard no later than April 20, 2010. The public may file written
statements with the committee; written material should reach the Coast
Guard no later than April 20, 2010. If you would like a copy of your
material distributed to each member of the committee, please submit 35
copies to the Liaison to the DFO no later than April 20, 2010, and
indicate that the material is to be distributed to committee members at
the April 28, 2010 meeting.
    Please register your attendance with the Liaison to the DFO no
later than April 20, 2010.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the Liaison to the DFO as soon as possible.

    Dated: April 7, 2010.
Joseph M. Re,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Performance Management (CG-0954).
[FR Doc. 2010-8371 Filed 4-8-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62455-62459]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24125]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0499; FRL-9901-35-Region3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State Board Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve two State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the District of
Columbia (hereafter ``the District'') pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The
plan is required to address basic program elements including, but not
limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal
authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. These elements are referred to as
infrastructure requirements. The District made a submittal addressing
the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS and a
separate submittal addressing requirements in

relation to State Boards. EPA is approving portions of the
infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS and the
requirements addressing State Boards for the District in accordance
with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 23, 2013 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 21,
2013. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0499 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0499, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0499. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the District of Columbia Department of the
Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th floor,
Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 18, 2013, the District Department of
the Environment (DDOE) submitted a revision to the District's SIP to
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008
lead NAAQS (the infrastructure submittal). On this same date, DDOE
submitted a revision to the District SIP addressing the State Board
requirements under sections 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA.

I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the primary and
secondary lead NAAQS, revising the level of the primary (health-based)
standard from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 0.15
[mu]g/m\3\, measured as total suspended particles (TSP) and not to be
exceeded with an averaging time of a rolling 3-month period. EPA also
revised the secondary (welfare-based) standard to be identical to the
primary standard, as well as the associated ambient air monitoring
requirements. See 40 CFR 50.16.
    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. The contents
of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances.
In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect
the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submission may
also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP
already contains.
    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(1)
provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs and section
110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS.
    For the 2008 lead NAAQS, states typically have met many of the
basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier
SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. Nevertheless,
pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states have to review and revise, as
appropriate, their existing SIPs to ensure that the SIPs are adequate
to address the 2008 lead NAAQS. To assist states in meeting this
statutory requirement, EPA issued a guidance on October 14, 2011,
entitled, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements Required Under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008
Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (hereafter
the ``2011 Lead Infrastructure Guidance''), which lists the basic
elements that states should include in their SIPs for the 2008 lead
NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires the states to satisfy for each
NAAQS the requirements of section 128 of the CAA in relation to State
Boards. Section 128(a) requires SIPs to contain provisions that: (1)
Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under
the CAA have at least a majority of its members represent the public
interest and not derive any significant portion of their income from
persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2)
any potential conflict of interest by members of such board or body or
the

head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately
disclosed.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

A. Infrastructure Requirements

    On July 18, 2013, DDOE provided a submittal to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
This submittal addresses the following infrastructure elements, which
EPA is proposing to approve: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J),
(K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof. The infrastructure element
(E)(ii) requirements, pertaining to State Boards, are satisfied by a
separate submittal which was received by EPA on the same date and it is
addressed in section II.B of this rulemaking action. The District did
not submit element (I) which pertains to the nonattainment requirements
of part D, Title I of the CAA, since this element is not required to be
submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and
will be addressed in a separate process, if necessary.
    While the District failed to submit a complete SIP addressing the
portions of (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) relating to the part C,
Title I of the CAA for the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA recognizes that such
requirements have already been addressed by a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) that remains in place, containing the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. EPA concludes that such
findings of incompleteness would not trigger any additional FIP
obligation for the District with respect to these infrastructure
requirements. Therefore, EPA is not taking any action for the 2008 lead
NAAQS for elements (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J), for the portions
which relate to the PSD permit program required by part C, Title I of
the CAA.
    In accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit, EPA at this time is not treating the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from the District as a required SIP
submission. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2013). However, even
if the submission is not considered to be ``required,'' EPA must act on
the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from the District because section
110(k)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to act on all SIP submissions. Unless
the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the
Supreme Court, states are not required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
SIPs until EPA has quantified their obligations under that section. In
this action, EPA is acting on the District's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
submission.
    A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving the
District's infrastructure submittal may be found in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action, which is available
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0499.

B. State Board Requirements

    On July 18, 2013, DDOE also submitted a separate SIP revision
addressing the requirements of CAA section 128 in relation to the State
Board requirements. This submission also satisfies the State Board
requirements under 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. The SIP
revision consists of updating the existing provisions in the District
SIP which satisfy the obligations under sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). In this SIP revision, DDOE states that the relevant
section 128 requirements are currently found in chapter 11A
``Government Ethics and Accountability'' of title I ``Government
Organization'' of the District of Columbia Official Code (2012 Supp.),
which the District through DDOE is requesting EPA to approve as part of
the District's SIP. The conduct of the DDOE Director, and that of his
employees, is currently subject to the requirements of title I, chapter
11A of the District of Columbia Official Code. All District employees
are required to follow the laws in title I, chapter 11A of the District
of Columbia Official Code regarding employee conduct.
    Specifically, the SIP revision consists of incorporating into the
SIP the following provisions of title I, chapter 11A of the District of
Columbia Official Code, specifically section 1-1161.01
(``Definitions''); section 1-1162.23 (``Conflicts of Interest'');
section 1-1162.24 (``Public Reporting''); and section 1-1162.25
(``Confidential Disclosure of Financial Interest''). These provisions
supersede the section 128 provisions previously approved in the SIP,
and DDOE requests as part of this SIP revision the removal of the prior
provisions which addressed section 128 requirements from the District's
SIP. See (49 FR 22810, June 1, 1984), as codified in 40 CFR 50.470(e).
    The requirements of section 128(a)(1) are not applicable to the
District because it does not have any board or body which approves air
quality permits or enforcement orders. The requirements of section
128(a)(2), however, are applicable to the District because DDOE's
Director (i.e., the head of an executive agency) has the similar powers
discussed in section 128(a)(2). DDOE approves all CAA permits and
enforcement orders in the District. DDOE is an executive agency that
acts through its Director or a delegated state employee subordinate.
    EPA finds that the measures in these provisions (sections 1-
1161.01, 1-1162.23, 1-1162.24, and 1-1162.25 of the District of
Columbia Official Code) are adequate to meet the District's obligations
under section 128 as well as the infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA also finds that the submittal specifically meets
the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the
2008 lead NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the District's two SIP revisions. EPA is approving
the District's SIP revision addressing the following section 110(a)(2)
elements for the 2008 lead NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or
portions thereof. This SIP revision provides the basic program elements
specified in section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the 2008 lead NAAQS. This action does not include section
110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment
requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. EPA is also approving the
District's SIP revision addressing the requirements of section 128.
This SIP revision, which consists of incorporating the relevant
provisions of title I, chapter 11A of the District of Columbia Official
Code (2012 Supp.) in the District SIP and removing superseded
provisions in the SIP under 40 CFR 50.470(e), meets the requirements of
section 128. EPA is also approving this SIP revision as meeting the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2008
lead NAAQS. The SIP revisions were formally and individually submitted
on July 18, 2013. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal
because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of
today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective on December 23, 2013
without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by November
21, 2013. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments

in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 23, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action. This action, which satisfies certain infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 lead NAAQS
and State Board requirements under section 128 of the CAA for the
District, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: September 13, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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 J--District of Columbia

0
2. Sec.  52.470 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the table heading in paragraph (c) to read EPA-Approved
Regulations and Statutes in the District of Columbia SIP.
0
b. Adding at the end of the table in paragraph (c) headings for D.C.
Official Code and Title I--Chapter 11A Government Ethics and
Accountability, and entries for Sections 1-1161.01 and 1-1161.23
through 1-1161.25.
0
c. In paragraph (e):
0
i. Removing from the table the entry ``Revisions for conflict of
interest procedures [CAA Section 128 SIP]''.
0
ii. Adding at the end of the table an entry ``Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS''.
0
iii. Adding at the end of the table an entry ``CAA section 128
requirements in relation to State Boards''.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                      EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes in the District of Columbia SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          State citation               Title/subject      effective     EPA approval date        Additional
                                                             date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               D.C. Official Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Title I--Chapter 11A Government Ethics and Accountability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1-1161.01................  Definitions.........      4/27/12  10/22/13 [Insert      ....................
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       the document
                                                                       begins].
Section 1-1162.23................  Conflicts of              4/27/12  10/22/13 [Insert      ....................
                                    Interest.                          page number where
                                                                       the document
                                                                       begins].
Section 1-1162.24................  Public Reporting....      4/27/12  10/22/13 [Insert      ....................
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       the document
                                                                       begins].
Section 1-1162.25................  Confidential              4/27/12  10/22/13 [Insert      ....................
                                    Disclosure of                      page number where
                                    Financial Interest.                the document
                                                                       begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable        submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   Statewide...........      7/18/13  10/22/13 [Insert      This action
 Requirements for the 2008 Lead                                        Federal Register      addresses the
 NAAQS.                                                                page number where     following CAA
                                                                       the document begins   elements:
                                                                       and date].            110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M), or
                                                                                portions thereof.
CAA section 128 requirements in    Statewide...........      7/18/13  10/22/13 [Insert      ....................
 relation to State Boards.                                             page number where
                                                                       the document
                                                                       begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-24125 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28701-28705]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13162]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83432; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.
1, To Amend Pillar Trading Platform Rule 7.31 Relating to Reserve
Orders and Rule 7.36 Relating to Setter Priority

June 14, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on June 1, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change. On June 8, 2018, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange.\4\ 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.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaces and supersedes the original filing
in its entirety. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange modified the
definition of ``child order'' in proposed rule 7.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Pillar trading platform Rule 7.31
relating to Reserve Orders and Rule 7.36 relating to Setter Priority.
This Amendment No. 1 supersedes the original filing in its entirety.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website 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 proposes to amend Rule 7.31 relating to Reserve Orders
and Rule 7.36 relating to Setter Priority. These proposed changes would
be operative for trading on the Pillar trading platform only. Because
the Exchange trades only UTP Securities \5\ on the Pillar trading
platform at this time, these proposed changes would not be applicable
to NYSE-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``UTP Securities'' is defined in Rule 1.1 to mean a
security that is listed on a national securities exchange other than
the Exchange and that trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted
trading privileges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    Rule 7.31(d)(1) defines a Reserve Order as a Limit Order with a
quantity of the size displayed and with a reserve quantity of the size
(``reserve interest'') that is not displayed. The displayed quantity of
a Reserve Order is ranked Priority 2--Display Orders and the reserve
interest is ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders.\6\ Rule
7.31(d)(1)(A) provides that on entry, the display quantity of a Reserve
Order must be entered in round lots and the displayed portion of a
Reserve Order will be replenished following any execution. That rule
further provides that the Exchange will display the full size of the
Reserve Order when the unfilled quantity is less than the minimum
display size for the order. Rule 7.31(d)(1)(B) provides that each time
a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve interest, a new working
time is assigned to the replenished quantity of the Reserve Order,
while the reserve interest retains the working time of original order
entry. Pursuant to Rule 7.31(d)(1)(C), a Reserve Order must be
designated Day and may be combined with a Limit Non-Routable Order or a
Primary Pegged Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The terms ``Priority 2--Display Orders'' and ``Priority 3--
Non-Display Orders'' are defined in Rule 7.36(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7.36(h) provides that Setter Priority will be assigned to an
order ranked Priority 2--Display Orders with a display quantity of at
least a round lot if such order (i) establishes a new BBO and (ii)
either establishes a new NBBO or joins an Away Market NBBO and that
only one order is eligible for Setter Priority at each price.\7\ Rule
7.36(h)(1) provides that an order will be evaluated for Setter Priority
on arrival, which includes when any portion of an order that has routed
returns unexecuted and when it becomes eligible to trade for the first
time upon transitioning to a new trading session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The terms ``BBO,'' ``NBBO,'' ``PBBO,'' and ``Away Market''
are defined in Rule 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to Reserve Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(d)(1) to change the manner
by which the display portion of a Reserve Order would be replenished.
As proposed, rather than replenishing the display quantity following
any execution, the Exchange proposes to replenish the Reserve Order
when the display quantity is decremented to below a round lot. This
proposed functionality is consistent with how Reserve Orders are
replenished on other equity exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Rule
11.9(c)(1); Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule 7503(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is currently the case, the replenish quantity would be the
minimum display size of the order or the remaining quantity of reserve
interest if it is less than the minimum display quantity. To reflect
this functionality, the Exchange proposes that Rule 7.31(d)(1)(A) would
be amended as follows (deleted text bracketed; new text underlined):
    (A) On entry, the display quantity of a Reserve Order must be
entered in round lots. The displayed portion of a Reserve Order will be
replenished when the display quantity is decremented to below a round
lot. The replenish quantity will be the minimum display quantity of the
order or the remaining quantity of the reserve interest if it is less
than the minimum display quantity [following any execution. The
Exchange will display the full size of the Reserve Order when the
unfilled quantity is less than the minimum display size for the order].
    Under current functionality, because the replenished quantity is
assigned a new working time, it is feasible for a single Reserve Order
to have multiple

replenished quantities with separate working times, each, a ``child''
order. The proposed change to limit when a Reserve Order would be
replenished to when the display quantity is decremented to below a
round lot only would reduce the number of child orders for a Reserve
Order. The Exchange believes that minimizing the number of child orders
for a Reserve Order would reduce the potential for market participants
to detect that a child order displayed on the Exchange's proprietary
market data feeds is associated with a Reserve Order.
    In most cases, the maximum number of child orders for a Reserve
Order would be two. For example, assume a Reserve Order to buy has a
display quantity of 100 shares and an additional 200 shares of reserve
interest. A sell order of 50 shares would trade with the display
quantity of such Reserve Order, which would decrement the display
quantity to 50 shares. As proposed, the Exchange would then replenish
the Reserve Order with 100 shares from the reserve interest, i.e., the
minimum display size for the order. After this second replenishment,
the Reserve Order would have two child orders, one for 50 shares, the
other for 100 shares, each with different working times.
    Generally, when there are two child orders, the older child order
of less than a round lot will be executed before the second child
order. However, there are limited circumstances when a Reserve Order
could have two child orders that equal less than a round lot, which, as
proposed, would trigger a replenishment. For such circumstance, the
Exchange proposes that when a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve
interest and already has two child orders that equal less than a round
lot, the child order with the later working time would be reassigned
the new working time assigned to the next replenished quantity.
    For example, taking the same Reserve Order as above:
     If 100 shares of such order (``A'') are routed on arrival,
it would have a display quantity of 100 shares (``B'') and 100 shares
in reserve interest.
     While ``A'' is routed, a sell order of 50 shares would
trade with ``B,'' decrementing ``B'' to 50 shares and the Reserve Order
would be replenished from reserve interest, creating a second child
order ``C'' of 100 shares.
     Next, the Exchange receives a request to reduce the size
of the Reserve Order from 300 shares to 230 shares. Because ``A'' is
still routed away and there is no reserve interest, and as described in
more detail below, this 70 share reduction in size would be applied
against the most recent child order of ``C,'' which would be reduced to
30 shares. Together with ``B,'' which would still be 50 shares, the two
displayed child orders would equal less than a round lot, but with no
quantity in reserve interest.
     Next, ``A'' is returned unexecuted, and as described
below, becomes reserve interest and is evaluated for replenishment.
Because the total display quantity (``B'' + ``C'') is less than a round
lot, this Reserve Order would be replenished. But because the Reserve
Order already has two child orders, the child order with the later
working time, ``C,'' would be returned to the reserve interest, which
would now have a quantity of 130 shares (``C'' + ``A''), and the
Reserve Order would be replenished with 100 shares from the reserve
interest with a new working time, which would be a new child order
``D.''
     After this replenishment, this Reserve Order would have
two child orders of ``B'' for 50 shares and ``D'' for 100 shares, and a
reserve interest of 30 shares.
    To effect these changes, the Exchange proposes to amend current
Rule 7.31(d)(1)(B) to specify that each display quantity of a Reserve
Order with a different working time would be referred to as a child
order. The Exchange further proposes new Rule 7.31(d)(1)(B)(i) that
would provide that when a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve
interest and already has two child orders that equal less than a round
lot, the child order with the later working time would rejoin the
reserve interest and be assigned the new working time assigned to the
next replenished quantity.
    The Exchange also proposes new Rule 7.31(d)(1)(B)(ii) to provide
that if a Reserve Order is not routable (i.e., is combined with either
a Limit Non-Routable Order or a Primary Pegged Order), the replenish
quantity would be assigned a display and working price consistent with
the instructions for the order, which represents current functionality.
For example, for a Limit Non-Routable Reserve Order, if the display
price would lock or cross the contra-side PBBO, the replenished
quantity would be assigned a display price one MPV worse than the PBBO
and a working price equal to the contra-side PBBO, as provided for in
Rule 7.31(e)(1)(A)(i). The Exchange believes that this proposed rule
text would provide transparency and clarity to Exchange rules.
    For a Primary Pegged Reserve Order, the Exchange proposes that the
replenished quantity would follow Rule 7.31(h)(2)(B), which provides
that a Primary Pegged Order would be rejected if the PBBO is locked or
crossed. Because a Primary Pegged Reserve Order would have resting
reserve interest, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(2)(B) to
provide that if the PBBO is locked or crossed when the display quantity
of a Primary Pegged Reserve Order is replenished, the entire order
would be cancelled. The Exchange believes that cancelling the entire
order is consistent with the current rule that provides that the entire
order would be rejected on arrival if the display quantity would lock
or cross the PBBO.
    The Exchange further proposes to add new subsection (D) to Rule
7.31(d)(1) to describe when a Reserve Order would be routed. As
proposed, a routable Reserve Order would be evaluated for routing both
on arrival and each time the display quantity is replenished.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1)(D)(i) would provide that if routing is
required, the Exchange would route from reserve interest before
publishing the display quantity. In addition, if after routing, there
is less than a round lot available to display, the Exchange would wait
until the routed quantity returns (executed or unexecuted) before
publishing the display quantity. In the example described above, the
Exchange would have published the display quantity before the routed
quantity returned because the display quantity was at least a round
lot. If, however, 250 shares of a Reserve Order of 300 shares had been
routed on arrival, because the unrouted quantity was less than a round
lot (50 shares), the Exchange would wait for the routed quantity to
return, either executed or unexecuted, before publishing the display
quantity.
    The Exchange proposes this functionality to reduce the possibility
for a Reserve Order to have more than one child order. If the Exchange
did not wait, and instead displayed the 50 shares when the balance of
the Reserve Order has routed, if the 250 shares returns unexecuted,
such Reserve Order would be replenished and would have two child
orders--one for the 50 shares that was displayed when the order was
entered and a second for the 100 shares that replenished the Reserve
Order from the quantity that returned unexecuted. By contrast, by
waiting for a report on the routed quantity, if the routed quantity was
not executed, the Exchange would display the minimum display quantity
as a single child order. If the routed quantity was executed, the
Exchange would display the 50 shares, but only because that would be
the full remaining quantity of the Reserve Order.

    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1)(D)(ii) would provide that any quantity of
a Reserve Order that is returned unexecuted would join the working time
of the reserve interest, which is current functionality. If there is no
quantity of reserve interest to join, the returned quantity would be
assigned a new working time as reserve interest. As further proposed,
in either case, such reserve interest would replenish the display
quantity as provided for in Rules 7.31(d)(1)(A) and (B). The Exchange
believes that this proposed rule text would promote transparency and
clarity in Exchange rules. The Exchange further believes it is
appropriate for a returned quantity of a Reserve Order to join the
reserve interest first because the order may not be eligible for a
replenishment to the display quantity.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1)(E) would provide that a request to reduce
in size a Reserve Order would cancel the reserve interest before
canceling the display quantity and if there is more than one child
order, the child order with the later working time would be cancelled
first. This represents current functionality and the example set forth
above demonstrates how this would function. The Exchange believes that
canceling reserve interest before a child order would promote the
display of liquidity on an exchange. The Exchange further believes that
canceling a later-timed child order would respect the time priority of
the first child order, and any priority such child order may have for
allocations.
Proposed Rule Change for Setter Priority
    The Exchange also proposes to expand the opportunity for an order
to be eligible for Setter Priority pursuant to Rule 7.36(h)(1). As
noted above, currently, an order is eligible for Setter Priority on
arrival or when it becomes eligible to trade for the first time when
transitioning to a new trading session.
    The Exchange first proposes to amend Rule 7.36(h)(1) to specify
that an order would not be eligible for Setter Priority if there is an
odd-lot sized order with Setter Priority at that price, which is
current functionality. Because an odd-lot order cannot establish a BBO,
if there is an odd-lot order at a price, an arriving order can get
Setter Priority if it establishes the BBO and either joins or
establishes the NBBO. However, as set forth in Rule 7.36(h)(2)(A), an
order retains Setter Priority if it is decremented to below a round
lot. In such case, an arriving order that establishes the BBO and
either joins or establishes the NBBO would not be eligible for Setter
Priority if there is an odd-lot sized order at that price with Setter
Priority. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule text would
promote transparency and clarity in Exchange rules.
    The Exchange proposes in new Rule 7.36(h)(1)(C) that Setter
Priority would be evaluated for a resting order that is assigned a new
display price. A resting order could be assigned a new display price
for a number of reasons, including because of a change to the PBBO or
NBBO (as described in Rule 7.31), pursuant to Rule 7.11(a)(5), or if a
Short Sale Period is triggered for a security under Rule 7.16(f). In
any repricing scenario, the repriced order would be evaluated for
Setter Priority, meaning it would have to meet the requirements of Rule
7.36(h) that it has a display quantity of at least a round lot and (i)
establishes a new BBO and (ii) either establishes a new NBBO or joins
an Away Market NBBO. The Exchange believes that if a repriced resting
order meets these conditions, it has aggressively displayed liquidity
on the Exchange and should be eligible for the additional Setter
Priority allocation.
    The Exchange proposes to specify what would happen if multiple
orders reprice at the same time. As proposed in the second sentence to
new Rule 7.36(h)(1)(C), if multiple orders reprice at the same time,
none of the orders would be eligible for Setter Priority unless one
order is equal to or greater than a round lot and the sum of all other
orders at that price is less than a round lot. The other orders at that
price could have been resting orders, e.g., odd-lot sized displayed
orders, or other repriced orders, or both. The Exchange believes that
this proposed change is consistent with how the Exchange evaluates
Setter Priority on arrival, which is available for an incoming order of
at least a round-lot size that establishes the BBO and either joins or
establishes the NBBO, notwithstanding other orders at that price that
equal less than a round lot and do not already have Setter Priority.
    The Exchange also proposes in new Rule 7.36(h)(1)(D) that a Reserve
Order would be evaluated for Setter Priority when the display quantity
is replenished. The Exchange proposes this change in conjunction with
the proposed changes to Reserve Order replenishment, described above.
Because a Reserve Order would be replenished only if the display
quantity is decremented to below a round lot, the Exchange believes
that a replenishment event should be eligible for Setter Priority if it
both establishes a BBO and either joins or establishes the NBBO. If the
second child order meets those conditions, such child order would be
eligible for Setter Priority even if there is still the first child
order of an odd-lot size for such Reserve Order on the Exchange Book.
However, consistent with the proposed change to Rule 7.36(h)(1), if the
first child order of the Reserve Order had Setter Priority, the second
child order of the Reserve Order would not be eligible for Setter
Priority because there is already an order on the Exchange Book at that
price with Setter Priority.
    The second sentence of proposed Rule 7.36(h)(1)(D) would further
provide that during a Short Sale Period under Rule 7.16(f), if a short
sale Reserve Order has an odd-lot quantity with Setter Priority and the
Permitted Price at which such order would be replenished would be a
different price, the replenish quantity would not be eligible for
Setter Priority. As set forth in Rule 7.16(f)(5)(B), reserve interest
that replenishes the displayed quantity of a Reserve Order will be
replenished at a Permitted Price. Even though the second child order
would be at a different price and would otherwise meet the conditions
for Setter Priority, the Exchange believes that a Reserve Order should
not be eligible for Setter Priority at more than one price.
    For example, during a Short Sale Period,
     If the NBB is 10.00, a short sale Reserve Order priced at
10.01 would be displayed at 10.01. If that short sale Reserve Order
established the BO and either joined or established the NBO, it would
be assigned Setter Priority.
     If the NBB subsequently changes to 10.01, pursuant to Rule
7.16(f)(6), the display quantity of the Reserve Order would remain
displayed at 10.01, but the reserve interest would be repriced to the
Permitted Price of 10.02.
     If next, the display quantity at 10.01 is reduced to below
a round lot, such child order would retain Setter Priority. In
addition, the Reserve Order would be replenished at 10.02, which is the
Permitted Price. However, as proposed, even if the child order at 10.02
would establish a new BO and either joined or established a new NBO,
because it is part of the same Reserve Order, it would not be eligible
to Setter Priority at the Permitted Price.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.36(h)(3)(C), which
provides that an order loses its Setter Priority if such order is less
than a round lot and is assigned a new working time pursuant to Rule
7.38(d)(2). To reflect the proposed change to Reserve Orders described
above that a child order could be assigned a new working time, the
Exchange proposes that if child order of a Reserve Order with Setter
Priority is assigned a new

working time, it would lose that priority. However, when it joins the
reserve interest and replenishes the Reserve Order, pursuant to
proposed Rule 7.36(h)(1)(D), the new child order would be evaluated for
Setter Priority. For example:
     If the Away Market PBB is 10.05 and the Exchange receives
a Reserve Order to buy priced at 10.00 with 100 shares minimum display
quantity and an additional 1000 shares in reserve interest, the child
order ``A'' of 100 shares would be displayed at 10.00, but would not be
eligible for Setter Priority.
     If the Away Market PBB adjusts to 9.99 and the Exchange
receives a sell order with a limit price of 10.00 for 70 shares, ``A''
would be decremented to 30 shares and the Reserve Order would be
replenished with a new child order ``B'' for 100 shares. Because ``B''
would establish a new BB on the Exchange and a new NBB, it would be
assigned Setter Priority.
     If next, the Exchange receives an order to sell 90 shares
at 10.00, because ``B'' has Setter Priority, it would trade with the
new order to sell and would decremented to 10 shares, but still retain
Setter Priority.
     Because ``A'' and ``B'' equal less than a round lot, the
Reserve Order will be replenished. But because ``B'' would lose its
working time and join the reserve interest pursuant to proposed Rule
7.31(d)(1)(B), ``B'' would also lose its Setter Priority pursuant to
proposed Rule 7.36(h)(3)(C). A new child order ``C'' would replenish
the order for 100 shares.
     In this case, because ``C'' would again establish the BB
on the Exchange and the NBB, ``C'' would be assigned Setter Priority
for 100 shares.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.36(h)(4) to delete
sub-paragraph (B) of that Rule, which provides that Setter Priority is
not available when the reserve quantity replenishes the display
quantity of a Reserve Order. The Exchange proposes to re-number the
rule text so that Rule 7.36(h)(4) provides that Setter Priority is not
available for any portion of an order that is ranked Priority 3--Non-
Display Orders, which is currently set forth in sub-paragraph (A).
* * * * *
    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce by Trader Update when these
changes will be implemented.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\10\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to replenish a
Reserve Order only if the display quantity is decremented to below a
round lot would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because it would
reduce the number of child orders associated with a single Reserve
Order. By reducing the number of child orders, the Exchange believes it
would reduce the potential for market participants to detect that a
child order is associated with a Reserve Order. This proposed
functionality is also consistent with how Reserve Orders function on
BZX and Nasdaq.
    For similar reasons, the Exchange believes that if a Reserve Order
has two child orders that equal less than a round lot, it would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system to assign a new working time to the later
child order so that when such Reserve Order is replenished, it would
have a maximum of only two child orders. The Exchange believes that
this proposed change would streamline the operation of Reserve Orders
and meet the objective to reduce the potential for market participants
to be able to identify that a child order is associated with a Reserve
Order.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change to
evaluate a Reserve Order for routing both on arrival and when
replenishing would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because it would
reduce the potential for the display quantity of a Reserve Order to
lock or cross the PBBO of an away market. The Exchange further believes
that routing from reserve interest would promote the display of
liquidity on the Exchange, because if there is at least a round lot
remaining of a Reserve Order that is not routed, the Exchange would
display that quantity. The Exchange also believes that it would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system to wait to display a Reserve Order if there is
less than a round lot remaining after routing because it would reduce
the potential for such Reserve Order to have more than one child order.
Finally, the Exchange believes that joining any quantity of a Reserve
Order that is returned unexecuted with reserve interest first would be
consistent with the proposed replenishment logic that a Reserve Order
would be replenished only if the display quantity is decremented to
below a round lot.
    The Exchange believes that it would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system to apply a request to reduce in size a Reserve Order to the
reserve interest first, and then next to the child order with the later
working time, because such functionality would promote the display of
liquidity on the Exchange and honor the priority of the first child
order with the earlier working time. The Exchange believes that
including this existing functionality in Rule 7.31 would promote
transparency and clarity in Exchange rules.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to Primary Pegged
Reserve Orders would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system because similar to
how a Primary Pegged Order would function on arrival, if the replenish
quantity of a Primary Pegged Reserve Order would lock or cross the
PBBO, the entire Reserve Order would be cancelled. The Exchange
believes that by cancelling the entire order, the Exchange would reduce
the potential for such order to be displayed at a price that would lock
or cross the PBBO.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 7.36
relating to Setter Priority would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it would provide for additional circumstances when an order
would be eligible to be evaluated for Setter Priority. The Exchange
believes that a resting order that is repriced or a Reserve Order that
is replenished should be entitled to Setter Priority if it meets the
existing conditions for Setter Priority, including that it is at least
a round lot in size, establishes the BBO, and either establishes or
joins the NBBO. In these circumstances, a repriced order or replenished
Reserve Order would be promoting the aggressive display of liquidity on
the

Exchange, which would benefit all market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Setter Priority
are designed to operate consistently with the existing functionality,
which is why multiple orders that reprice would not be eligible for
Setter Priority, unless one order is equal to a round lot or more and
the sum of all other orders at that price equal less than a round lot.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that it would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system for a Reserve Order to be eligible for Setter Priority at
only one price, and therefore, during a Short Sale Period, if a Reserve
Order is replenished at a Permitted Price, it would not be eligible for
Setter Priority at a second price level.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule
7.37(h)(3)(C) to add that an order would lose Setter Priority if it is
less than a round lot and assigned a new working time pursuant to
proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1)(B)(i) is consistent with current behavior that
an odd-lot sized order would lose Setter Priority if it is assigned a
new working time. The Exchange believes that it would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system for a Reserve Order to lose Setter Priority in
such circumstances because when it is assigned a new working time, it
would be eligible to be reevaluated for Setter Priority.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed
rule change to Reserve Orders is designed to reduce the potential for
market participants to identify that a child order is related to a
Reserve Order. The changes to Setter Priority are designed to promote
the aggressive display of liquidity on the Exchange to provide
additional circumstances when an order would be eligible for Setter
Priority, consistent with current rules.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2018-26 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-NYSE-2018-26. 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 Exchange. 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-NYSE-2018-26 and should be submitted on
or before July 11, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13162 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P