[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68186-68188]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27716]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68183; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Increase the Options
Regulatory Fee and To Revise the Circumstances Under Which NYSE Amex
Options LLC Will Collect the Options Regulatory Fee

November 8, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 7, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule
to increase its Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') and to revise the
circumstances under which the Exchange will collect the ORF. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to increase its ORF and to revise the
circumstances under which the Exchange will collect the ORF.
Background
    The ORF, which is currently $0.004 per contract, is assessed by the
Exchange on each ATP Holder for all options transactions executed or
cleared by the ATP Holder that are cleared by The Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range, i.e., transactions that
clear in the customer account of the ATP Holder's clearing firm at OCC,
regardless of the marketplace of execution.\4\ In other words, the
Exchange imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions executed by
an ATP Holder even if the transactions do not take place on the
Exchange. In the case where an ATP Holder executes a transaction and a
different ATP Holder clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the
ATP Holder who executes the transaction. In the case where a non-ATP
Holder executes a transaction and an ATP Holder clears the transaction,
the ORF is assessed to the ATP Holder who clears the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64400 (May 4, 2011),
76 FR 27118 (May 10, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dues and fees paid by ATP Holders go into the general funds of
the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of
regulation. In particular, the ORF is designed to recover a material
portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation
of ATP Holders, including performing routine surveillance and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities. The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF so that, in combination with other regulatory
fees and fines, it does not exceed regulatory costs. The ORF is
collected indirectly from ATP Holders through their clearing firms by
OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
Proposed Change
    The Exchange proposes to (1) increase the ORF from $0.004 per
contract to $0.005 per contract in order to recoup increased regulatory
expenses while also monitoring the revenue collected so that the ORF
will not exceed such expenses, and (2) revise the

circumstances in which the Exchange will collect the ORF from ATP
Holders. Transaction volumes across the industry have declined, thereby
reducing ORF revenue, but the Exchange's regulatory expenses have not
declined. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the
proposed ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory
fees, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's
regulatory costs. The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of
revenue collected from the ORF so that, in combination with the
Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, it does not exceed
regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines that regulatory revenues
exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting
a proposed rule change to the Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with
respect to member compliance with options sales practice rules have
been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') under an SEC Rule 17d-2 agreement. The ORF is not
designed to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation. See
supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to revise the manner in which
it assesses the ORF. Currently, upon becoming an ATP Holder, a
participant immediately becomes liable for the ORF. In certain
instances, particularly at the outset of becoming an ATP Holder, a
participant may be registered with the Exchange prior to obtaining the
requisite technological certification needed to act as a Floor Broker,
Market Maker, Clearing Member or Order Flow Provider. The Exchange
believes that it is not equitable to assess the ORF on an ATP Holder
that, prior to initially satisfying certain technology requirements, is
not capable of availing itself of the benefits of its status as an ATP
Holder.\6\ The Exchange does not desire to assess the ORF on such ATP
Holders until they have satisfied applicable technological requirements
necessary to commence operations on the Exchange. The proposed change
will have no effect on the assessment of fees for current ATP Holders
that are fully certified to transact business on the Exchange, as
described above. The Exchange notes that at least one other exchange
has such a provision for assessing the options regulatory fee after
satisfaction of applicable technology requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange anticipates that any delay in satisfying
applicable technological requirements necessary to commence
operations on the Exchange would be brief.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62804 (August 31,
2010), 75 FR 54688 (September 8, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-060).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues surrounding the ORF and that the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that ATP Holders would have in
complying with the proposed change. The Exchange proposes to implement
these changes on December 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act,\9\ in particular, because it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable because the
Exchange's revenue from the collection of the ORF has declined due to a
decrease in industry volume, but the Exchange's regulatory expenses
have not declined. As described above, through the ORF the Exchange
seeks to recover the costs of supervising and regulating ATP Holders,
including performing routine surveillance and investigations, as well
as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The
proposed ORF increase will help to maintain the total revenue collected
to offset these regulatory expenses, but would not exceed those
regulatory costs. The Exchange further notes that another options
exchange has raised its options regulatory fee to $0.0065 per contract,
so the Exchange's proposed ORF of $0.005 per contract will still be
below that level.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67597 (August 6,
2012), 77 FR 47887 (August 10, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-065).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed ORF increase is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to
all ATP Holders on all of their transactions that clear in the customer
range at OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ORF is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it results in fees being
charged to those ATP Holders that require more Exchange regulatory
services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct.
In this regard, regulating customer trading activity is more labor
intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical
resources than regulating non-customer trading activity. Surveillance
and regulation of non-customer trading activity generally tends to be
more automated and less labor intensive. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are anticipated to be higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component of its
regulatory program. As such, the Exchange proposes to continue to
assess the ORF to those ATP Holders that will require more Exchange
regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business
they conduct.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The ORF is not charged for orders that clear in categories
other than the customer range (e.g., market maker orders) because
ATP Holders incur the costs of acquiring trading permits and through
these permits are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that
go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is
used to help pay the costs of regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ORF will continue to be equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee increase is objectively
allocated to all ATP Holders. The only ATP Holders that would not pay
the fee will be those that have not yet achieved the technical
certifications that are needed to actually begin acting as a Floor
Broker, Market Maker, Clearing Member or Order Flow Provider on the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that this exception is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Not assessing the ORF on an
ATP Holder that is not yet able to act in the capacity for which it is
attempting to obtain certification is reasonable because the ATP Holder
is not yet able to generate the revenue associated with serving in that
capacity. In this respect, it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to not begin charging the ORF until the ATP Holder can
generate the revenue to pay the fee. It is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in an objective manner to
all similarly situated ATP Holders.
    As noted above, the Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of
revenue collected from the ORF so that, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, it does not exceed regulatory costs. If the
Exchange determines that regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs,
the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a proposed rule change
to the Commission.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose

any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \13\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE MKT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-54. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-54, and should
be submitted on or before December 6, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27716 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 25, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52289-52292]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18601]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0759; Airspace Docket No. 20-ACE-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace and
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Fort Riley and Manhattan, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class D and Class E airspace
at Marshall AAF, Fort Riley, KS, and Manhattan Regional Airport,
Manhattan, KS, and establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Marshall AAF and Freeman Field, Junction
City, KS. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of airspace
reviews caused by the decommissioning of the Calvary and

McDowell Creek non-directional beacons (NDBs). The names and geographic
coordinates of airports and navigational aids would also be updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0759/Airspace Docket No. 20-ACE-20 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, Class
E airspace area designated as an extension to Class D and Class E
surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Manhattan Regional Airport, Manhattan, KS; amend
the Class D and Class E surface airspace at Marshall AAF, Fort Riley,
KS; and establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Marshall AAF and Freeman Field, Junction City, KS, to
support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0759/
Airspace Docket No. 20-ACE-20.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
    Amending the Class D airspace to within a 3.9-mile radius
(increased from a 3.7-mile radius) of Marshall AAF, Fort Riley, KS;
adding an extension 1.1 miles each side of the 216[deg] radial from the
Fort Riley VOR extending from the 3.9-mile radius to 4.7 miles
southwest of the airport; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the
220[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 3.9-mile radius to
4 miles southwest of the airport; updating the name (previously
Marshall Army Airfield) and geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the cities
associated with the airports to comply with changes to FAA Order
7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and replacing the
outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement'';
    Amending the Class D airspace to within a 4.3-mile radius
(increased from a 4.2-mile radius) of Manhattan Regional Airport,
Manhattan, KS; removing the Manhattan VOR/DME and McDowell Creek NDB
from the airspace legal description as they are not required; updating
the name (previously Manhattan Municipal Airport) and geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database; and replacing the outdated

term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement'';
    Amending the Class E surface area to within a 3.9-mile radius
(increased from a 3.7-mile radius) of Marshall AAF; removing the
current extension from the Fort Riley VOR, as it is no longer required;
removing the Calvary NDB and associated extension from the airspace
legal description; adding an extension 1.1 miles each side of the
216[deg] radial from the Fort Riley VOR extending from the 3.9-mile
radius to 4.7 miles southwest of the airport; adding an extension 1
mile each side of the 220[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 3.9-mile radius to 4 miles southwest of the airport; updating the
name (previously Marshall Army Airfield) and geographic coordinates of
the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing
the cities associated with the airports to comply with changes to FAA
Order 7400.2M; and replacing the outdated term ``Airport/Facility
Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement'';
    Amending the Class E surface area to within a 4.3-mile radius
(increased from a 4.2-mile radius) of Manhattan Regional Airport;
updating the name (previously Manhattan Municipal Airport) and
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database; and adding part-time verbiage to the airspace
legal description that was previously omitted;
    Amending the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to
Class D and Class E surface airspace at Manhattan Regional Airport by
removing the McDowell NDB and associated extensions from the airspace
legal description; removing the extension to the southeast of the VOR/
DME, as it is no longer needed; adding an extension within 1 mile each
side of the 040[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-
mile radius of the airport to 4.4 miles northeast of the airport;
adding an extension 1.3 miles each side of the 042[deg] radial from the
Manhattan VOR/DME extending from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to
5.2 miles northeast of the airport; adding an extension 2.4 miles each
side of the 211[deg] radial from the Manhattan VOR/DME extending from
the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southwest of the
Manhattan VOR/DME; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 220[deg]
bearing from the Manhattan Regional: RWY 03-LOC extending from the 4.3-
mile radius of the airport to 4.5 miles southwest of the airport; and
updating the name (previously Manhattan Municipal Airport) and
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database;
    Establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Marshall AAF; within 1.1 miles
each side of the 216[deg] radial of the Fort Riley VOR extending from
the 6.4-mile radius of Marshall AAF to 6.5 miles southwest of the
Marshall AAF; and within a 6.4-mile radius of Freeman Field, Junction
City, KS, excluding that airspace within Restricted Areas R-3602A and
R-3602B;
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius (increased from a 6.7-mile
radius) of Manhattan Regional Airport; removing the McDowell NDB an
associated extensions from the airspace legal description; removing the
extensions southeast of the VOR/DME, as they are no longer required;
removing the HATAN OM and Manhattan Municipal Airport ILS and
associated extensions, as they are no longer required; adding an
extension 4 miles each side of the 040[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 10.6 miles
northeast of the airport; amending the extension northeast of the VOR/
DME to within 3.2 miles (decreased from 3.5 miles) each side of the
042[deg] (previously 046[deg]) radial from the Manhattan VOR/DME
extending from the 6.8-mile (increased from 6.7-mile) radius of the
airport to 7 miles (decreased from 9.5 miles) northeast of the
Manhattan VOR/DME (previously VOR/DME); adding an extension 2.4 miles
each side of the 211[deg] radial from the Manhattan VOR/DME extending
from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southwest of the
Manhattan VOR/DME; and updating the name (previously Manhattan
Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is due to airspace reviews caused by the
decommissioning of the Calvary and McDowell Creek NDBs, which provided
navigational information to the instrument procedures at these
airports.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated
August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designation
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE KS D Fort Riley, KS [Amended]

Marshall AAF, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]03'10'' N, long. 96[deg]45'52'' W)
Freeman Field, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]02'36'' N, long. 96[deg]50'36'' W)
Fort Riley VOR
    (Lat. 38[deg]58'13'' N, long. 96[deg]15'40'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,600 feet MSL within a 3.9-mile radius of the Marshall AAF, and
within 1.1 miles each side of the 216[deg]

radial from the Fort Riley VOR extending from the 3.9-mile radius of
Marshall AAF to 4.7 miles southwest of Marshall AAF, and within 1
mile each side of the 220[deg] bearing from Marshall AAF extending
from the 3.9 mile radius of Marshall AAF to 4 miles southwest of
Marshall AAF excluding that airspace within Restricted Area R-3602B
and excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of Freeman Field.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

ACE KS D Manhattan, KS [Amended]

Manhattan Regional Airport, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]08'28'' N, long. 96[deg]40'19'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,600 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Manhattan Regional
Airport excluding that airspace within the Fort Riley, KS, Class D
airspace and Class E surface airspace areas and excluding that
airspace within Restricted Area R-3602B. This Class D airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advanced by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area.

* * * * *

ACE KS E2 Fort Riley, KS [Amended]

Marshall AAF, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]03'10'' N, long. 96[deg]45'52'' W)
Freeman Field, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]02'36'' N, long. 96[deg]50'36'' W)
Fort Riley VOR
    (Lat. 38[deg]58'13'' N, long. 96[deg]15'40'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 3.9-
mile radius of the Marshall AAF, and within 1.1 miles each side of
the 216[deg] radial from the Fort Riley VOR extending from the 3.9-
mile radius of Marshall AAF to 4.7 miles southwest of Marshall AAF,
and within 1 mile each side of the 220[deg] bearing from Marshall
AAF extending from the 3.9 mile radius of Marshall AAF to 4 miles
southwest of Marshall AAF excluding that airspace within Restricted
Area R-3602B and excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of
Freeman Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

ACE KS E2 Manhattan, KS [Amended]

Manhattan Regional Airport, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]08'28'' N, long. 96[deg]40'19'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-
mile radius of Manhattan Regional Airport excluding that airspace
within the Fort Riley, KS, Class D airspace and Class E surface
airspace areas and excluding that airspace within Restricted Area R-
3602B. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advanced by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ACE KS E4 Manhattan, KS [Amended]

Manhattan Regional Airport, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]08'28'' N, long. 96[deg]40'19'' W)
Manhattan VOR/DME
    (Lat. 39[deg]08'44'' N, long. 96[deg]40'07'' W)
Manhattan Regional: RWY 03-LOC
    (Lat. 39[deg]08'55'' N, long. 96[deg]39'43'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile
each side of the 040[deg] bearing from the Manhattan Regional
Airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to 4.4-
miles northeast of the airport, and within 1.3 miles each side of
the 042[deg] radial from the Manhattan VOR/DME extending from the
4.3-mile radius of the Manhattan Regional Airport to 5.3 miles
northeast of the airport; and within 2.4 miles each side of the
211[deg] radial from the Manhattan VOR/DME extending from the 4.3-
mile radius of the Manhattan Regional Airport to 7 miles southwest
of the Manhattan VOR/DME; and within 1 mile each side of the
220[deg] bearing from the Manhattan Regional: RWY 03-LOC extending
from the 4.3-mile radius of the Manhattan Regional Airport to 4.5
miles southwest of the airport excluding that airspace within
Restricted Area R-3602B.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Fort Riley, KS [Establish]

Marshall AAF, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]03'10'' N, long. 96[deg]45'52'' W)
Freeman Field, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]02'36'' N, long. 96[deg]50'36'' W)
Fort Riley VOR
    (Lat. 38[deg]58'13'' N, long. 96[deg]15'40'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Marshall AAF, and within 1.1 miles each
side of the 216[deg] radial from the Fort Riley VOR extending from
the 6.4-mile radius of the Marshall AAF to 6.5 miles southwest of
Marshall AAF, and within A 6.4-mile radius of Freeman Field
excluding that airspace within Restricted Areas R-3602A and R-3602B.
* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Manhattan, KS [Amended]

Manhattan Regional Airport, KS
    (Lat. 39[deg]08'28'' N, long. 96[deg]40'19'' W)
Manhattan VOR/DME
    (Lat. 39[deg]08'44'' N, long. 96[deg]40'07'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of the Manhattan Regional Airport, and
within 4 miles each side of the 040[deg] bearing from the Manhattan
Regional Airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport
to 10.6 miles northeast of the airport, and within 3.2 miles each
side of the 042[deg] radial from the Manhattan VOR/DME extending
from the 6.8-mile radius of the Manhattan Regional Airport to 7
miles northeast of the Manhattan VOR/DME, and within 2.4 miles each
side of the 211[deg] radial from the Manhattan VOR/DME extending
from the 6.8-mile radius of the Manhattan Regional Airport to 7
miles southwest of the Manhattan VOR/DME excluding that airspace
within Restricted Areas R-3602A and R-3602B.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 20, 2020.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-18601 Filed 8-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28835-28838]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12255]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0819; FRL-9927-48-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; NAAQS Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on
December 2, 2013. The state rule revisions update Illinois' ambient air
quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone, nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), lead, fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), particulate matter (PM10), and carbon
monoxide (CO) and bring them up to date (through 2012) with EPA-
promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP
revision also adopts EPA-promulgated monitoring methods and test
procedures for the revised state air quality standards.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 20, 2015, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by June 19, 2015. If adverse comments are
received by EPA, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0819, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Air Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Air Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of

business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays?
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0819. 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 docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
    A. When and why did the state make this submittal?
    B. Did the state hold public hearings for this submittal?
II. What is EPA's analysis of IEPA's submittal?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. When and why did the state make this submittal?

    Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to
establish national primary (protective of human health) and secondary
(protective of human welfare) air quality standards. Individually or
collectively these standards are referred to as NAAQS. Section
109(d)(1) of the CAA requires EPA to review, and if necessary, based on
accumulated health or welfare data, to revise each NAAQS every five
years. States that maintain state air quality standard definitions in
their state rules and SIPs must periodically revise their rules and
SIPs to reflect the latest NAAQS.
    On December 2, 2013, IEPA submitted a SIP revision containing rule
revisions to address the NAAQS for SO2, ozone,
NO2, lead, PM2.5, PM10, and CO. In
this submittal, the state requests EPA to approve into the SIP rule
revisions to establish Illinois air quality standards ``identical-in-
substance'' \1\ to all NAAQS promulgated by EPA for these pollutants
and published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) through the end
of 2012. The rule revisions also incorporate by reference all EPA-
promulgated Federal Reference Methods (FRMs) and Federal Equivalent
Methods (FEMs) for monitoring the subject air pollutants, also
specified in the CFR through 2012. The rule revisions remove state air
quality standards no longer supported by current NAAQS. The rule
revisions remove several existing Illinois rule elements deemed to be
no longer appropriate for the adopted air quality standards and
monitoring methods. Finally, the rule revisions add a number of acronym
and term definitions needed to fully implement the adopted air quality
standards and monitoring methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Identical-in-substance'' means that all air quality
standards adopted by the state and included in the requested SIP
revision have the same magnitude, averaging time, and form as the
NAAQS they represent. However, the specific language of the state's
air quality standard rules may differ from that of EPA's promulgated
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois' rule revisions ensure consistency between the state and
Federal definitions of the air quality standards and associated
monitoring methods, and support consistency between the state and the
EPA in the determination of attainment or nonattainment of the air
quality standards.
    The state rule revisions were adopted by the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (IPCB) on July 25, 2013, and became effective on July 29,
2013.

B. Did the state hold public hearings for this submittal?

    A public hearing on the rule revisions was held on June 26, 2013,
and the state addressed several comments made during this hearing or
received through written comments submitted by the public.

II. What is EPA's analysis of IEPA's submittal?

    Illinois' submittal covers revisions to state rules contained in 35
Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) Part 243 (35 IAC 243). Significant
additions, modifications, and deletions to Part 243 are discussed and
evaluated below.
    35 IAC Section 243.101, Definitions, contains term and
concentration unit definitions critical to the implementation of the
state's air quality standards. This section has been modified to change
or add definitions of, terms including, but not limited to,
``Exceedance of a NAAQS;'' ``Exceptional event;'' ``Federal reference
method;'' ``Federal equivalent method;'' ``Micrograms per cubic
meter;'' ``Milligrams per cubic meter;'' ``Parts per million;'' ``Parts
per billion;'' ``PM10;'' and ``PM2.5.''
Definitions for these terms and concentration units were generally
derived from their definitions and usage in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53. We
find these definitions to be acceptable and in agreement with
definitions for these terms and concentration units used by the EPA.
    The heading of 35 IAC Section 243.102, Scope, has been revised from
``Preamble'' to ``Scope'' to correspond with the Federal regulations.
The former preamble statement in 35 IAC Section 243.102(a) has been
replaced with the statement of scope from 40 CFR 50.2. This section
also adds in parentheses ``primary NAAQS'' after ``National

primary air quality standards'' and adds in parentheses ``secondary
NAAQS'' after ``National secondary air quality standards.'' All older
subsections of this section have been deleted to remove provisions no
longer needed to implement the state's air quality standards. This
revised section is acceptable.
    Section 243.103, Applicability, has been revised to improve its
readability and notes that the adopted air quality standards are
applicable throughout the entire state of Illinois.
    The IPCB has chosen to repeal Section 243.104 (the Non-degradation
Rule) from 35 IAC 243 and from the Illinois SIP. The Non-degradation
Rule predates the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and adoption of
the state's air quality standard rules. When adopting the air quality
standard rules, the IPCB chose to adopt the Non-degradation Rule from
earlier rules of the Air Pollution Control Board (a predecessor of the
IPCB). This rule section was intended to protect areas in Illinois
currently attaining the air quality standards. The IPCB chose to remove
this rule section from 35 IAC 243 because: (1) it might conflict with
Federal non-degradation rules; (2) it is not necessary in the context
of the NAAQS; and, (3) it was not possible to correct its flaws in the
context of the state's air quality standard rules contained in 35 IAC
243. This rule removal is acceptable.
    Section 243.105, Air Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by
Exceptional Events, has been added to correspond with 40 CFR 50.14
(2012). This section provides for a state request to the EPA for a
determination that certain monitored air quality concentrations that
are the result of exceptional events may be excluded from the
consideration of air quality for purposes of determining exceedances of
the air quality standards. This section describes the nature of the
state's exceptional event demonstration to the EPA and specifies the
criteria that the exceptional event demonstration must meet for
approval by the EPA. Of particular note, this section describes
exclusion of air quality data resulting from fireworks and prescribed
fires. Finally, this section describes the schedules and procedures to
be followed when the state petitions the EPA for a determination of an
exceptional event. This section was derived from 40 CFR part 50, and is
acceptable.
    Section 243.106, Monitoring, which described the general approach
to the monitoring of air quality levels, has been repealed. This
section provided no specific criteria for the monitoring of air levels,
and its removal is acceptable.
    Section 243.107, Reference Conditions, has been revised to improve
its readability and specifies the reference temperature and reference
air pressure to which monitored air quality concentrations must be
adjusted to assure acceptable comparability of the monitored air
quality concentrations. The rule revision is acceptable and reflects
ambient condition adjustments required by the EPA in 40 CFR part 50.
    Section 243.108, Incorporation by Reference, includes Federal rules
and documents incorporated by reference into Illinois' air quality
rules. More specifically, this section includes the required reference
methods applicable to the monitoring of specific pollutants as
specified in the appendices to 40 CFR part 50 and documents published
by the National Exposure Research Laboratory, Human Exposure and
Atmospheric Sciences Division of EPA. In addition, this section
incorporates by reference all appendices in 40 CFR part 50 needed to
interpret the adopted air quality standards or to define the FRMs and
FEMs for each pollutant. These incorporations by reference are needed
to implement the state's air quality standards in a manner equivalent
to the NAAQS.
    The air quality standards themselves are contained in sections
243.120 through 243.126, with each of these sections being applicable
to a specific pollutant (each section covers all standards applicable
to the given pollutant). Illinois has rewritten these sections to
eliminate ambient air quality standards that have been revoked or
eliminated by EPA and to add or update standards for each pollutant as
currently adopted/promulgated by the EPA through 2012. Each section
also defines the Federal reference and equivalent monitoring methods
applicable to each pollutant. The state has rewritten the air quality
standards to be ``identical-in-substance'' with EPA's promulgated
NAAQS. The state's adopted air quality standards contain the same air
quality levels, averaging times, and forms as the NAAQS, but have been
rewritten for consistency in Illinois' rule system. All NAAQS contained
in 40 CFR part 50 (2012) are reflected by the Illinois air quality
standards now specified in sections 243.120 through 243.126. EPA has
compared the adopted air quality standards to the NAAQS specified in 40
CFR part 50, and has found them to be acceptable.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the requested SIP revision submission pertaining
to the amendments to Illinois' ambient air quality standards since
these revised air quality standards are consistent with the NAAQS
promulgated by EPA and in existence during 2012. The state will adopt
new air quality standards as new NAAQS are adopted by EPA and will
subsequently remove/repeal certain air quality standards as EPA revokes
the standards as NAAQS. Specifically, we are approving 35 IAC sections
243.101, 243.102, 243.103, 243.105, 243.107, 243.108, 243.120, 243.122,
243.123, 243.124, 243.125, 243.126, and 243.TableA, and we are
incorporating by reference these rules into the Illinois SIP. We are
also approving the repeal from the SIP of 35 IAC sections 243.104,
243.106, 243.Appendix A, 243.Appendix B, and 243.Appendix C.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 20, 2015
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by June 19, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective July
20, 2015.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Illinois
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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).
    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 July 20, 2015. 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 this 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. This action 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: May 4, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    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.

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(204) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (204) On December 2, 2013, Illinois submitted an amendment to its
State Implementation Plan at 35 Illinois Administrative Code part 243,
which updates Illinois air quality standards to reflect National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for sulfur dioxide, ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, lead, fine particulate matter, particulate matter, and carbon
monoxide and incorporates Federal test procedures for these pollutants.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Illinois Administrative Code Title
35: Environmental Protection; Subtitle B: Air Pollution; Chapter I:
Pollution Control Board; Subchapter l: Air Quality Standards And
Episodes; Part 243: Air Quality Standards; Sections 243.101
Definitions, 243.102 Scope, 243.103 Applicability, 243.105 Air Quality
Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional Events, 243.107 Reference
Conditions, 243.108 Incorporations by Reference, 243.120
PM10 and PM2.5, 243.122 Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur
Dioxide), 243.123 Carbon Monoxide, 243.124 Nitrogen Oxides (Nitrogen
Dioxide as Indicator), 243.125 Ozone, 243.126 Lead, and 243.TABLE A
Schedule of Exceptional Event Flagging and Documentation Submission for
New or Revised NAAQS, effective July 29, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2015-12255 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 43751]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0723]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Medical Devices; Reports of
Corrections and Removals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Medical Devices; Reports of
Corrections and Removals'' has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 8, 2014, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Medical Devices; Reports
of Corrections and Removals'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0359.
The approval expires on July 31, 2017. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: July 22, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-17633 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73347-73348]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23560]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0584]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Standardized
Reporting Forms for Food and Drug Administration Federally Funded
Public Health Projects and Agreements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by November 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0909. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Showalter, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Standardized Reporting Forms for FDA Federally Funded Public Health
Projects

OMB Control Number 0910-0909--Revision

    This information collection supports federally funded public health
projects administered by FDA. As part of FDA's efforts to protect the
public health, we work collaboratively with State partners to enhance
oversight of FDA-regulated products. Consistent with applicable
regulations, we collect information related to an awardee's progress in
completing agreed-upon performance metrics.
    To increase our efficiency in evaluating program effectiveness and
return-on-investment (ROI)/return-on-value (ROV) for the federally
funded projects that we administer, we developed and established the
use of digital forms under a pilot project information collection that
contain tailored, standardized questions to capture data elements
necessary to measure/track ROI/ROV, best practices, and program
effectiveness. Forms are submitted by email and aggregated into dynamic
reports by program for FDA evaluators allowing for quick comparison of
program data between report periods and comparable metrics to evaluate
program success or lack of performance in a timely manner. The pilot
project confirmed that the use of standardized forms will reduce the
time required by awardees in completing and submitting data collection
reports. Additional findings include: a drastic increase in data
quality, a significant reduction in the number of follow-ups needed to
request additional information or clarify responses, and the ability to
aggregate data quickly into a useable format for programmatic review
and respond effectively to requests for program performance data.
Coupled with positive feedback from FDA data users and external
partners received during the pilot project, we considered the pilot
phase a success and plans to continue use of tailored forms for program
performance metrics including ROI/ROV data for its current and new
funded public health projects moving forward.
    Respondents complete an initial report and progress/performance
reports which include data fields to identify the award project and
contact person and directs specific questions to respondents regarding
project and progress updates. As the public, partnering awardees, and
FDA data users provide feedback through various opportunities, we will
revise the reports tailoring for project specificity and purpose, to
include, but not limited to, improvements in metrics analysis, question
clarity, and formatting and design, such as drop-down menu selections
and potential common response indicators. This method will ensure a
continuation of the reduced time for respondents and allow us to more
quickly process information and determine impacts at the Agency level
as observed during the pilot. As information will be requested of
actively funded projects, it still may become necessary to request
additional information for a particular project to complete the
performance evaluation(s) in a timely manner. To ensure data is
sufficient, on a case-by-case basis, FDA anticipates a need for follow-
up questionnaire(s) to supplement the progress reports and as
instruments of collection are developed and fine-tuned through this
effort. We do not have any specific adjustments or revisions to the
approved forms at this time, other than the inclusion of PRA
statements. Due to the evolving nature of public health issues, non-
substantive modifications may be made to the forms during the 3-year
approval period of this information collection. Prior to
implementation, such modifications will be submitted to OMB for
approval, and they will be made available for public review and comment
during the standard information collection extension/revision approval
process.
    In the Federal Register of July 29, 2021 (86 FR 40853), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received. Subsequent to the
close of the 60-day notice public comment period, additional comments
were received from internal and external stakeholders through our
solicitation of feedback external to the PRA public comment
opportunity. Upon our review, these comments were generally supportive
of the piloted forms, and many contained suggestions for additional
technical improvements. At the same time, none of the comments
suggested any change to our estimated burden and we have therefore
retained those currently submitted. While we are not making changes to
the forms with this submission, we plan to implement changes based on
the feedback received as part of the continuous improvement process for
the information collection over the next few years.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to the information
collection are State, local, Tribal and Territorial governments who are
recipients of FDA-funded projects who submit required information to
FDA.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Number of
                Awardee activity                     Number of      responses per     Total annual       Average burden per response       Total hours
                                                    respondents       respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Report; Update Reports; Supplement                   330            3.303            1,090   28.17 hours.......................          30,700
 Reports (if applicable).                                                                            (28 hours and 10 minutes).........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We estimate that 330 respondents will participate in FDA funded
projects and agreements annually and will submit 2 to 4 reports within
a single yearlong budget period (Table 1). To ensure adequate reporting
will be achieved over the course of these projects, the option for a
supplement report is included in the estimated reporting burden;
however, the need for these reports will be determined on a case-by-
case basis with the FDA project manager. The estimated burden for each
of the individual reporting activities was calculated based on the
annual number of submissions and distributed among respondents.

                                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Number of
                Awardee activity                     Number of       records per      Total annual    Average burden per recordkeeping     Total hours
                                                   recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Report, Updated Reports, or Supplement               330            3.303            1,090   0.5 hours.........................             545
 Reports (if applicable).                                                                            (30 minutes)......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Recordkeeping activities include storing and maintaining records
related to submitting a request to participate in the project and
compiling reports. Respondents should use current record retention
capabilities for electronic or paper storage to achieve these
activities. We assume it will take 0.5 hour/year to ensure the
documents related to submitting a request to participate in the program
are retained properly according to their existing recordkeeping
policies, but no less than 3 years, as recommended by FDA (Table 2).
The estimated burden for each of the individual reporting activities
was calculated based on the annual number of submissions and
distributed among respondents.

                                               Table 3--Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Number of
             Awardee-entity activity                 Number of     disclosures per    Total annual      Average burden per disclosure      Total hours
                                                    respondents       respondent      disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordination with partnering entities related to             200                7            1,400   8.................................          11,200
 Initial Report, Update Reports, and Supplement
 Report (if applicable).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    For those funded projects that involve a participant composed of
partnering entities in the program, FDA is taking into consideration
the time that partnering entities will spend coordinating with each
other. We estimate that 200 respondents will work with their respective
partnering entities and the average number of partnering entities will
be 2. We assume each respondent will spend 8 hours coordinating with
each partnering entity on each response for an estimated 7 responses or
reports each (Table 3). The estimated burden for each of the individual
reporting activities was calculated based on the annual number of
submissions and distributed among respondents.
    We are requesting OMB approval for conclusion of the pilot project
and continued use of the forms for programmatic data collection needs.
There are no adjustments or revisions to the estimated burden. However,
this request results in an adjustment decrease in the number of
responses, to correct data-entry errors in the database related to the
previous submission to OMB.

    Dated: October 20, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-23560 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1251-1252]
[FR Doc No: 2016-257]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76822; File No. 4-443]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Amendment to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing
Procedures Designed To Facilitate the Listing and Trading of
Standardized Options To Add EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') as a Plan
Sponsor

January 5, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 27, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') an amendment to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing
and Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the Listing and
Trading of Standardized Options (``OLPP'').\3\ The amendment proposes
to add EDGX as a Sponsor of the OLPP. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On July 6, 2001, the Commission approved the OLPP, which was
proposed by the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), International
Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''), Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC''), Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''), and Pacific
Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a ``NYSE Arca''). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 44521, 66 FR 36809 (July 13, 2001). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 49199 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR 7030
(February 12, 2004) (adding Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. as a Sponsor
to the OLPP); 57546 (March 21, 2008), 73 FR 16393 (March 27, 2008)
(adding Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (``Nasdaq'') as a Sponsor to the
OLPP); 61528 (February 17, 2010), 75 FR 8415 (February 24, 2010)
(adding BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') as a Sponsor to the OLPP);
63162 (October 22, 2010), 75 FR 66401 (October 28, 2010) (adding C2
Options Exchange Incorporated (``C2'') as a sponsor to the OLPP);
66952 (May 9, 2012), 77 FR 28641 (May 15, 2012) (adding BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX'') as a Sponsor to the OLPP); 67327 (June 29,
2012), 77 FR 40125 (July 6, 2012) (adding Nasdaq OMX BX, Inc.
(``BX'') as a Sponsor to the OLPP); 70765 (October 28, 2013), 78 FR
65739 (November 1, 2013) (adding Topaz Exchange, LLC as a Sponsor to
the OLPP (``Topaz''); and 70764 (October 28, 2013), 78 FR 65733
(November 1, 2013) (adding Miami International Securities Exchange,
LLC (``MIAX'') as a Sponsor to the OLPP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Amendment

    The current Sponsors of the OLPP are Amex, BATS, BOX, BX, CBOE, C2,
ISE, MIAX, Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, OCC, Phlx, and Topaz. The proposed
amendment to the OLPP would add EDGX as a Sponsor of the OLPP. A
national securities exchange may become a Sponsor if it satisfies the
requirement of Section 7 of the OLPP. Specifically an Eligible Exchange
\4\ may become a Sponsor of the OLPP by: (i) Executing a copy of the
OLPP, as then in effect; (ii) providing each current Plan Sponsor with
a copy of such executed Plan; and (iii) effecting an amendment to the
OLPP, as specified in Section 7(ii) of the OLPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The OLPP defines an ``Eligible Exchange'' as a national
securities exchange registered with the Commission pursuant to
Section 6(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(a), that (1) has
effective rules for the trading of options contracts issued and
cleared by the OCC approved in accordance with the provisions of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and (2) is a
party to the Plan for Reporting Consolidated Options Last Sale
Reports and Quotation Information (the ``OPRA Plan''). EDGX has
represented that it has met both the requirements for being
considered an Eligible Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 7(ii) of the OLPP sets forth the process by which an
Eligible Exchange may effect an amendment to the OLPP. Specifically, an
Eligible Exchange must: (a) Execute a copy of the OLPP with the only
change being the addition of the new sponsor's name in Section 8 of the
OLPP; \5\ and (b) submit the executed OLPP to the Commission. The OLPP
then provides that such an amendment will be effective when it has been
approved by the Commission or otherwise becomes effective pursuant to
Section 11A of the Act. EDGX has submitted a signed copy of the OLPP to
the Commission and to each Plan Sponsor in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the OLPP regarding new Plan Sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission notes that the list of plan sponsors is set
forth in Section 9 of the OLPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Effectiveness of the Proposed OLPP Amendment

    The foregoing proposed OLPP amendment has become effective pursuant
to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) \6\ because it involves solely technical or
ministerial matters. At any time within sixty days of the filing of
this amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment and
require that it be refiled pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) of Rule
608,\7\ if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors
or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number 4-443 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 4-443. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at EDGX's principal office. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. 4-443 and should be submitted on
or before February 1, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-257 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 33875-33876]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62241; File No. SR-BATS-2010-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

June 8, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 28, 2010, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. BATS has
designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a
member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to
Members \5\ of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules 15.1(a) and (c).
While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be
effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on June 1,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to use
of the Exchange in order to amend the fees for its equity securities
market with respect to Modified Destination Specific Orders routed to a
dark liquidity venue (referred to by the Exchange as ``Dark Scan''
orders). In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the fees for its
equity options market to make clear that the Exchange passes through
the clearing costs it is charged in connection with options orders that
are routed away

from the Exchange and executed at another options exchange.
    First, the Exchange proposes to change its fee structure for
Modified Destination Specific Orders routed to a dark liquidity venue
(referred to by the Exchange as ``Dark Scan''). In contrast to its
``DART'' routing strategy, which first checks the Exchange's order book
and then routes to one or more dark liquidity venues, Dark Scan orders
do not first check the Exchange's order book but instead route to dark
liquidity venues first.\6\ The Exchange currently provides a rebate of
$0.0001 for Dark Scan orders executed at a dark liquidity venue. The
Exchange proposes eliminating this rebate, and instead facilitating
such executions free of charge. Accordingly, as proposed, the Exchange
will neither provide a rebate nor charge a fee for Dark Scan orders
executed at a dark liquidity venue. The Exchange proposes moving the
reference to ``Dark Scan'' that is currently contained on the fee
schedule to the end of the applicable clause so that it more closely
mirrors the manner that the ``DART'' routing fee is presented. The
Exchange believes this change makes the fee schedule less confusing as
it relates to the distinction between Dark Scan and DART routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Modified Destination Specific Orders are defined in BATS
Rule 11.9(c)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes a clarification to the fees it
charges for routing options orders to away markets. Specifically, the
Exchange's fee schedule currently states that the Exchange charges
$0.05 per contract for its standard options routing service and $0.10
per contract for Directed ISOs routed to away markets, and, in
addition, passes through all destination exchange fees for executions
at away markets. The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to
allow it to pass through to Options Members all destination exchange
fees and the actual clearing fees billed to the Exchange for the
executions of orders routed from the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that its options routing fees are inherently competitive, fair and
reasonable, and non-discriminatory as they replicate the fees actually
charged to the Exchange for routing to away markets, plus an additional
fee to the Exchange for providing the routing service.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\7\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. The Exchange believes that its fees
and credits are competitive with those charged by other venues.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rates are equitable in
that they apply uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

(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.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\10\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed on members by the Exchange. Accordingly, the
proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BATS-2010-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2010-015. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2010-015 and should be
submitted on or before July 6, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14363 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 109)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32268-32269]
[DOCID:fr08jn10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0069; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-15]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Mount Pleasant, SC.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
published in the Federal Register April 1, 2010 that establishes Class
E airspace at Mt Pleasant Regional Airport-Faison Field, Mount
Pleasant, SC.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, June 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P. O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16335), Docket
No. FAA-2010-0069; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-15. The FAA uses the
direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule

where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment.
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on
June 3, 2010. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice
confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 27, 2010.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-13637 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P