[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16351-16356]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05884]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69082; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Regulation NMS Plan To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility

March 8, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 7, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its rules to address certain option
order handling procedures and quoting obligations on the Exchange after
the implementation of the market wide equity Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Plan'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to update Exchange rules to correspond
with the Plan. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to make proposed
changes to Exchange Rules Rule 6.2B, ``Hybrid Opening System
(``HOSS''), 6.3A, ``Equity Market Trading Halt,'' Rule 6.14A, ``Hybrid
Agency Liaison,'' Rule 6.25, ``Nullification and Adjustment of Options
Transactions,'' Rule 6.53, ``Certain Types of Orders Defined,'' Rule
6.53C, ``Complex Orders on the Hybrid System,'' Rule 8.7, ``Obligations
of Market-Makers, Rule 8.13, ``Preferred Market-Maker Program,'' Rule
8.15A ``Lead Market-Maker in Hybrid Classes,'' Rule 8.85, ``DPM
Obligations,'' and Rule 8.93, ``e-DPM Obligations.'' The Exchange
believes these modifications will protect investors because when an
underlying security is in a limit or straddle state (collectively
referred to in this filing as a ``limit up-limit down state''), there
will not be a reliable price for the security to serve as a benchmark

for the price of the option. In addition, the width of the markets
might be compromised and, thus, the quality of execution for retail
customers. The Plan is more fully explained below.
    In an attempt to address extraordinary market volatility in NMS
Stock, and, in particular, events like the severe volatility on May 6,
2010, the Exchange, in conjunction with the other national securities
exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(collectively, ``Participants'') drafted the Plan pursuant to Rule 608
of Regulation NMS and under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act'').\3\ The Plan is primarily designed to, among other things,
address extraordinary market volatility in NMS stocks, protect
investors, and promote fair and orderly markets. The Plan provides for
market-wide limit up-limit down requirements that prevent trades in
individual NMS Stocks from occurring outside of specified price bands,
as defined in Section I(N) of the Plan. These requirements would be
coupled with trading pauses, as defined in Section I(Y) of the Plan, to
accommodate more fundamental price moves (as opposed to erroneous
trades or monetary gaps of liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64547 (May 25,
2011), 76 FR 31647 (June 1, 2011) (File No. 4-631).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan was filed on April 5, 2011 by the Participants for
publication and comment.\4\ The Participants requested the Commission
approve the Plan as a one-year pilot. On May 24, 2012, the Participants
filed an amendment to the Plan which clarified, among other things, the
calculation of the reference price, as defined in Section I(T) of the
Plan, potential for order type exemption, and the creation of an
Advisory Committee.\5\ On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the
Plan, as amended, on a one-year pilot basis.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631).
    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012) 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, Participants are required to adopt certain rules in
order to comply. Specifically, Section VI of the Plan sets forth the
limit up-limit down requirements of the Plan, and in particular, that
all trading centers in NMS Stocks, including both those operated by the
Participants and those operated by member of Participants, shall
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that
are reasonably designed to prevent trades at prices that are below the
lower price band or above the upper price band for an NMS Stock,
consistent with the Plan. Price Bands will be calculated by Securities
Information Processors (``SIPs'') responsible for consolidation of
information for an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS
under the Act. As proposed, and approved, the Plan will be implemented,
as a one year pilot program, in two phases.\7\ Phase I will become
effective April 8, 2013 and apply to Tier I NMS Stocks per Appendix A
of the Plan, and Phase II would become effective six months later, or
earlier if announced by the SIPs 30 days prior, and would apply to all
NMS Stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, when one side of the market for an individual
security is outside the applicable price band, the SIPs will be
required to disseminate such National Best Bid or National Best Offer
with an appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable. When the
other side of the market reaches the applicable price band, the market
for an individual security will enter a limit state. Trading for that
security will exit the limit state if, within 15 seconds of entering
the limit state, all limit state quotations were executed or cancelled.
If the market does not exit a limit state within 15 seconds, then the
primary listing exchange will declare a five-minute trading pause,
which will be applicable to all markets trading the security.
    Though the Plan is primarily designed for equity markets, the
Exchange believes it will, indirectly, potentially impact the options
markets as well. Thus, as stated above, the Exchange is proposing to
amend its rules to ensure the option markets are not harmed as a result
of the Plan's implementation. As such, the Exchange is proposing to
amend various rules to reflect such changes. The Exchange believes such
changes will protect participants, the Exchange and investors in
general.
    First, the Exchange is proposing to add Rule 6.3A to codify the
changes throughout the Exchange's rules. Currently, Rule 6.3A is titled
``Equity Market Trading Halts'' and has been deleted in its entirety.
The Exchange is proposing to amend the title to ``Equity Market Plan to
Address Extraordinary Market Volatility'' and add text. Rule 6.3A will
define the Plan as it applies to the Exchange. In addition, the
proposed rule change will describe the location of the other rule
changes associated with the Plan. In essence, the proposed changes to
Rule 6.3A will serve as a roadmap for the Exchange's universal changes
due to the implementation of the Plan. The proposed rule changes will
list changes to Exchange order types, order handling, obvious error,
and market-maker quoting obligations that the Exchange is proposing to
make in connection with the implementation of the Plan. These rule
changes are more thoroughly described in various sections of the
Exchange Rulebook, but having one place referencing all rules
associated with the Plan will serve to better protect investors by
making the other rules easily located. The Exchange believes the
proposed changes to Rule 6.3A will describe to Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs''), and other participants, where to find the changes
associated with the Plan and will, thus, attempt to maintain a more
orderly market.
    Next, the Exchange is proposing to modify its opening procedures
under Rule 6.2B, ``Hybrid Opening System'' (``HOSS''). The Exchange is
proposing to add an Interpretation and Policy .07 to clarify that if
the underlying security for a class of options enters into a limit up-
limit down state when the class moves to opening rotation, any market
orders entered that trading day will be cancelled. The Exchange
believes that by cancelling the market orders, it will comply with the
Plan by not allowing orders outside of the Price Bands to execute. As
an exception, market orders that are considered limit orders pursuant
to Rule 6.13(b)(iv) and entered the previous trading day will remain in
the Book. The Exchange is proposing to allow such market orders to
remain in the Book because these essentially act as limit orders at the
minimum increment. Cancelling such orders could potentially cause such
orders to lose their priority with respect to other market orders in
the Book.
    Next, the Exchange is proposing to modify Exchange Rule 6.14A,
``Hybrid Agency Liaison--(HAL).'' Exchange Rule 6.14A currently governs
the operation of HAL, a feature within the Hybrid System that provides
automated order handling in designated classes trading on the Hybrid
System for qualifying electronic orders that are not automatically
executed by the Hybrid System. The Exchange determines the eligible
order size, eligible order types, eligible origin code (i.e. public
customer orders, non-Market-Maker broker-dealer orders and Market-Maker
broker-dealer orders), and classes in which HAL is activated.\8\ When
the Exchange receives a qualifying order that is marketable against the
National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') and/or the Exchange's best

bid or offer (``BBO'') \9\, HAL electronically exposes the order \10\
at the NBBO price to allow Market-Makers appointed in that class, as
well as all TPHs acting as agent for orders, at the top of the
Exchange's book in the relevant series (or all TPHs if allowed by the
Exchange) to step-up to the NBBO price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 6.14A(a).
    \9\ HAL will not electronically expose the order if the
Exchange's quotation contains resting orders and does not contain
sufficient Market-Maker quotation interest to satisfy the entire
order.
    \10\ The duration of the exposure period may not exceed one
second. Rule 6.14A(c) describes the manner in which an exposed order
is allocated under HAL, and Rule 6.14A(d) lists the circumstances in
which an exposure period would terminate early.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the underlying security of the option in HAL affects the
pricing of the eventually executed order, the Exchange is proposing to
make changes to Rule 6.14A to reflect the implementation of the Plan.
More specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.14A to
modify the behavior of HAL of a market order while the underlying
security of the option is in a limit up-limit down state. If an
underlying security shall enter a limit up-limit down state while a HAL
of a market order is in process, the auction will end early, upon the
entering of the state. Any unexecuted portion of the market order shall
be cancelled. The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes will best
protect the TPH by ensuring it does not receive an executed order with
an unanticipated price due to the change in the underlying security. In
addition, by ending the auction early, the Exchange is providing a
better chance for the TPH to get its order executed as it is in the
TPH's interest for an earlier execution versus a later one.
    Next, the Exchange is proposing to modify how an electronic complex
order request for responses (``RFR'') auction (``COA'') will operate
while the underlying security of at least one of the options has
entered a limit state. Exchange Rule 6.53C(d) currently describes the
general COA process. Generally, on a class-by-class basis, the Exchange
may activate COA, which is a process by which eligible complex orders
\11\ are given an opportunity for price improvement before being booked
in the electronic complex order book (``COB'') or once on a PAR
workstation. On receipt of a COA-eligible order and request from a TPH
representing the order that it be COA'd, the Exchange will send an RFR
message to all TPHs who have elected to receive RFR messages.\12\ Each
Market-Maker with an appointment in the relevant option class and each
TPH acting as agent for orders resting at the top of the COB in the
relevant options series may then submit responses to the RFR message
during the Response Time Interval.\13\ The Exchange is proposing to add
to the COA rule that if, during COA of a market order, the underlying
security of an option enters a limit up-limit down state, the COA will
end upon the entering of that state and the remaining portion of the
order, if a market order, will cancel. The Exchange believes this
change will best protect investors as, must [sic] like HAL, the TPH may
receive a skewed price of the underlying security which would impact
the price of the option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ An eligible complex order, referred to in Rule 6.53C as a
``COA-eligible order,'' means a complex order that, as determined by
the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, is eligible for a COA
considering the order's marketability (defined as a number of ticks
away from the current market), size, complex order type and complex
order origin type (i.e. non-broker-dealer public customer, broker-
dealers that are not Market-Makers or specialists on an options
exchange, and/or Market-Makers or specialists on an options
exchange). All determinations by the Exchange on COA-eligible order
parameters are announced to Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory
Circular. See Rule 6.53C(d)(i)(2) and Interpretation and Policy .01
to Rule 6.53C.
    \12\ See Rule 6.53C(d)(ii). The RFR message will identify the
component series, the size of the COA-eligible order and any
contingencies, but will not identify the side of the market.
    \13\ See Rule 6.53C(d)(iii). A ``Response Time Interval'' means
the period of time during which responses to the RFR may be entered,
the length of which is determined by the Exchange on a class-by-
class basis but may not exceed three seconds. See Rule
6.53C(d)(iii)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 6.25
relating to the nullification and adjustment of options transactions.
Under the current rule, an Obvious Pricing Error occurs when the
execution price of an electronic transaction is above or below the
Theoretical Price for the series by a specified amount. For purpose of
the rule, the ``Theoretical Price'' of an option series is currently
defined, for series traded on at least one other options exchange, as
the last national best bid price with respect to an erroneous sell
transaction and the last national best offer price with respect to an
erroneous buy transaction, just prior to the trade. If there are no
quotes for comparison, Trading Officials \14\ determine the Theoretical
Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The term ``Trading Officials'' currently means two Exchange
members designated as Floor Officials and one member of the
Exchange's staff designated to perform Trading Official functions.
See Rules 6.25.02 and 24.16.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the theoretical price may be unreliable due to the
underlying security entering a limit up-limit down state, the Exchange
is proposing to amend the Exchange obvious error rules to provide that
the Exchange may not nullify or adjust executed orders when the
underlying security is in a limit up-limit down state. The Exchange is
also proposing to add language specifying that transactions in options
that overlay a security that is in a limit state may, however, be
reviewed on an Exchange motion. The Exchange believes this will best
protect the market because it allows limit orders to be executed on the
Exchange while the underlying securities are in limit states regardless
of the calculated theoretical price. Finally, the Exchange is proposing
to add language to specify that this provision will be on a one year
pilot basis to coincide with the Plan. The Exchange will provide the
Commission with data and analysis during the duration of this pilot as
requested.
    In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
protect against TPHs getting a potential second look at transactions
that happened during limit states that could be unfair to other
participants. The proposed rule change would encourage added liquidity
on the Exchange as the proposed changes would help to ensure that limit
orders that are filled during a limit up-limit down state would have
certainty of execution. By allowing the Exchange to continue to review
such transactions on their own motion, the Exchange is further
attempting to protect investors and maintain an orderly market. The
Exchange believes that the combination of encouraging TPHs to
participate on the market and allowing a safeguard to erroneous trades
will provide the best solution during the pilot of the Plan.
    Next, the Exchange is proposing to modify Rule 6.53 and 6.53C and,
more specifically, how certain Exchange order types will be handled
while the underlying security of such orders enters into a limit up-
limit down state. The proposed rule change will, among other things,
address how market orders,\15\ market-on-close,\16\ stop orders,\17\
and stock option orders \18\ will

function on the Exchange upon the implementation of the Plan. More
specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add language to clarify
that: (a) Market orders will be returned during limit up-limit down
states, (b) market-on-close orders will not be elected if the
underlying security is in a limit up-limit down state,\19\ (c) stop
orders will be held while the underlying security is in a limit up-
limit down state, and (d) stock-option orders will only execute if the
calculated stock price is within the permissible bands.\20\ In
addition, during a limit up-limit down state, if a message is sent to
replace a limit order with a market order, the resting limit order will
be cancelled and the replaced market order will also be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Rule 6.53(a) which defines a market order as
``an order to buy or sell a stated number of options contracts at
the best price obtainable when the order reaches the post.''
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 6.53(c)(ii) which defines a market-on-
close order designation as an order ``to be executed as close as
possible to the closing bell, or during the closing rotation, and
should be near to or at the closing price for the particular series
of option contracts.''
    \17\ See Exchange Rule 6.53(c)(iii) which defines a stop order
contingency to an order as one that ``to buy or sell when the market
for a particular option contract reaches a specified price on the
CBOE floor.''
    \18\ See Exchange Rule 6.53C(a)(2) which defines a stock-option
order as ``an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an
underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock
* * * coupled with the purchase or sale of options contract(s) on
the opposite side of the market.''
    \19\ During closing rotation, the Exchange will continue to re-
evaluate the state of underlying securities for which the overlying
securities have not yet been closed. If upon re-evaluation the
underlying security should exit a limit up-limit down state, a
market-on-close order may be executed.
    \20\ If the calculated price of a stock-option order is not
within the permissible Price Bands, the stock-option order will be
routed for manual handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a stock is in a limit or straddle state, while options trading
will continue, there will not be a reliable price for a security to
serve as a benchmark for the price of the option. In addition, without
a reliable underlying stock price, there is an enhanced risk of errors
and improper executions. With these concerns in mind, the Exchange
believes that adding a level of certainty for TPHs will encourage
participation on the Exchange whilst the underlying securities are in
limit up-limit down states. Thus, the Exchange believes handling these
certain orders in this way will best protect the investor after the
implementation of the Plan by not allowing execution at unreasonable
prices due to the shift in the stock prices.
    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate all market maker
obligations for options in which the underlying security is in a limit
up-limit down state while the underlying security in is in the limit
state. Currently, Exchange Rules 8.7, 8.13, 8.15A, 8.85, and 8.93
impose certain obligations on Market-Makers,\21\ PMMs,\22\ LMMs,\23\
DPMs,\24\ and e-DPMs,\25\ respectively, including obligations to
provide continuous electronic quotes. Upon implementation of the recent
rule change to Market-Maker's continuous quoting obligations,\26\ Rules
8.7, 8.13, 8.15A, 8.85, and 8.93 will require that Market-Makers
generally maintain continuous electronic quotes as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Exchange Rule 8.1, which defines a ``Market-Maker'' as
``an individual Trading Permit Holder or a TPH organization that is
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making transactions
as a dealer specialist on the Exchange * * * .''
    \22\ See Exchange Rule 8.13, which defines a ``Preferred Market-
Maker'' as a specific Market-Maker designated by a Trading Permit
Holder to receive that Trading Permit Holder's orders in a specific
class.
    \23\ See Exchange Rule 8.15A, which defines a ``Lead Market-
Maker'' as a Market-Maker in good standing appointed by the Exchange
``in an option class for which a DPM has not been appointed * * *
.''
    \24\ See Exchange Rule 8.80, which defines a ``Designated
Primary Market-Maker'' as a ``TPH organization that is approved by
the Exchange to function in allocated securities as a Market-Maker *
* * and is subject to the obligations under Rule 8.85 * * * .''
    \25\ See Exchange Rule 8.92, which defines an ``Electronic DPM''
as a ``TPH Organization that is approved by the Exchange to remotely
function in allocated option classes as a DPM and to fulfill certain
obligations required of DPMs * * * .''
    \26\ The Exchange recently proposed to, among other things, (a)
reduce to 90% the percentage of time for which a Market-Maker is
required to provide electronic quotes in an appointed option class
on a given trading day and (b) to increase to the lesser of 99% or
100% minus one call-put pair the percentage of series in which Lead
Market-Makers, Designated Primary Market-Makers and Electronic
Designated Primary Market-Makers must provide continuous electronic
quotes in their appointed classes, which proposed rule change was
immediately effective upon filing. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67410 (July 11, 2012), 77 FR 42040 (July 17, 2012) (SR-
CBOE-2012-064); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67644
(August 13, 2012), 77 FR 49846 (August 17, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-077)
(immediately effective rule change to delay the implementation date
of the proposed rule change in rule filing SR-CBOE-2012-064 and to
indicate that the Exchange will announce the new implementation date
by Regulatory Circular); see also Securities and Exchange Act
Release No. 68218 (November 13, 2012), 77 FR 69667 (November 20,
2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-106) (immediately effective rule change to
further delay the implementation date of the proposed rule change in
rule filing SR-CBOE-2012-064 and to indicate that the Exchange will
announce the new implement date by Regulatory Circular). In
addition, the Exchange recently filed an effective rule proposing to
exclude series that have a time to expiration of nine months or more
from Exchange Preferred Market Maker's continuous quoting
obligation. See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 68691
(January 18, 2013), 78 FR 5548 (January 25, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-
008). Finally, the Exchange recently filed a rule proposing to
exclude series that are added during the trading day from Exchange
Market Maker's continuous quoting obligation. See Securities and
Exchange Act Release No. 34-68944, 78 FR 12377. The rule text in
this filing includes the effective (but not implemented) changes to
the rule text made by rule filings SR-CBOE-2012-064 and SR-CBOE-
2013-008. The Exchange expects to implement the effective rule
changes to quoting obligations in filings SR-CBOE-2012-064 and SR-
CBOE-2013-008 in conjunction with the approval of the proposed rule
change in SR-CBOE-2013-019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 8.7(d)(ii)(B) will require that Market-Makers provide
continuous electronic quotes when quoting in a particular class on a
given trading day in 60% of the non-adjusted option series of the
Market-Maker's appointed class that have a time to expiration of less
than nine months;
     Rule 8.13(d) will require that PMMs provide continuous
electronic quotes when the Exchange is open for trading in at least the
lesser of 99% or 100% minus one call-put pair \27\ of the non-adjusted
option series of each class for which it receives Preferred Market-
Maker orders;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A ``call-put pair'' is one call and one put that cover the
same underlying instrument and have the same expiration date and
exercise price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 8.15A(b)(i) will require that LMMs provide continuous
electronic quotes when the Exchange is open for trading in at least the
lesser of 99% or 100% minus one call-put pair of the non-adjusted
option series within their assigned classes;
     Rule 8.85(a)(i) will require DPMs to provide continuous
electronic quotes when the Exchange is open for trading in at least the
lesser of 99% or 100% minus one call-put pair of the non-adjusted
option series of each class allocated to it; and
     Rule 8.93 will require e-DPMs to provide continuous
electronic quotes when the Exchange is open for trading in at least the
lesser of 99% or 100% minus one call-put pair of the non-adjusted
option series of each allocated class.
    Exchange Rules 8.13, 8.15B, and 8.87 provide that PMMs, LMMs, and
DPMs, and e-DPMs, respectively, generally will receive the following
participation entitlements in their assigned classes when quoting at
the best price if they satisfy their obligations and other conditions
set forth in the rules:
     Rule 8.13(c) provides that a PMM will receive a
participation entitlement of 40% when there are two or more Market-
Makers quoting at the best price on the Exchange and 50% when there is
only one other Market-Maker quoting at the best price on the Exchange;
     Rule 8.15B(c) provides that an LMM will receive a
participation entitlement of 50% when there is one Market-Maker also
quoting at the best price on the Exchange, 40% when there are two
Market-Makers also quoting at the best price on the Exchange, and 30%
when there are three or more Market-Makers

also quoting at the best price on the Exchange; \28\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ If more than one LMM is entitled to a participation
entitlement, the entitlement will be distributed equally among
eligible LMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 8.87(b)(2) provides that the collective DPM/e-DPM
participation entitlement will be 50% when there is one Market-Maker
also quoting at the best price on the Exchange, 40% when there are two
Market-Makers also quoting at the best price on the Exchange, and 30%
when there are three or more Market-Makers also quoting at the best
price on the Exchange.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The participation entitlements of PMMs, LMMs, DPMs and e-
DPMs are based on the number of contracts remaining after all public
customer orders in the book at the best price on the Exchange have
been satisfied. Additionally, a PMM, LMM, DPM or e-DPM may not be
allocated a total quantity greater than the quantity for which the
PMM, LMM, DPM or e-DPM is quoting at the best price. See Rules
8.13(c)(i) and (ii) (PMMs), 8.15B(b) and (c) (LMMs), and
8.87(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) (DPMs and e-DPMs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the Exchange implements the rule change referenced above,
Exchange Rule 1.1(ccc) will provide that a Market-Maker who is
obligated by CBOE Rules to provide continuous electronic quotes will be
deemed to have provided ``continuous electronic quotes'' if the Market-
Maker provides electronic two-sided quotes for 90% of the time that the
Market-Maker is required to provide electronic quotes in an appointed
option class on a given trading day. The rule will still provide that
if a technical failure or limitation of a system of the Exchange
prevents the Market-Maker from maintaining, or from communicating to
the Exchange, timely and accurate electronic quotes in a class, the
duration of such failure will not be considered in determining whether
the Market-Maker has satisfied the 90% quoting standard with respect to
that option class. In addition, the rule will still provide that the
Exchange may consider other exceptions to this continuous electronic
quote obligation based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements
or other mitigating circumstances.
    Because prices may be skewed due to the underlying security being
in a limit up-limit down state, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate
all market-maker quoting obligations in series of options that the
underlying security is currently in a limit up-limit down state.
Because of the direct relationship between an options price and the
price of the associated underlying security, the Exchange believes
eliminating all Market-Maker obligations in connection with the
implementation of the Plan is the most effective way to ensure the
options markets will not be compromised. Because a bid or offer of an
underlying security may not be executable due to a limit or straddle
state, the ability to hedge the purchase or sale of an option may not
be possible or, in the least, is at risk. Because of this reason, the
Exchange is anticipating that Exchange Market-Makers will be forced to
change behaviors. In addition, the Exchange believes other options
markets will be implementing similar changes. In an effort to protect
the investors in the options market while the underlying security is in
a limit up-limit down state, the Exchange believes that eliminating
quoting obligations is the more effective way for this protection.
    The Exchange, however, is proposing that Market-Makers may still
receive participation entitlements pursuant to the proposed rules in
all series in their assigned classes in which they are quoting, even in
series in which they are not required to provide continuous electronic
quotes under the Exchange Rules. Market-Makers already receive
participation entitlements in series they are not required to quote.
For example, a DPM is currently required to provide continuous
electronic quotes in at least 90% of the non-adjusted option series of
each multiply listed option class allocated to it and in 100% of the
non-adjusted option series of each singly listed option class allocated
to it for 99% of the trading day.\30\ If the DPM elects to quote in
100% of the non-adjusted series in a multiply listed option class
allocated to it, it will receive a participation entitlement in all of
those series when quoting at the best price, including the 10% of the
series in which it is not required to quote in. Thus, under the
proposed rule change, the market would continue to function as it does
now with respect to how entitlements are allocated to Market-Makers.
The Exchange believes this benefit is appropriate, as it incentivizes
Market-Makers to quote in as many series as possible in their appointed
classes, even those series in which the underlying security has entered
into a limit up-limit down state. The Exchange is attempting to better
encourage Market-Makers to quote though they will not be obligated to.
If they do choose to quote, the Exchange believes they should be
entitled to receive the Entitlement for such quoting as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ As discussed above, this obligation will change upon
implementation of a recent rule change. See supra note 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the combination of these modifications will
protect investors because when an underlying security is in a limit up-
limit down state, there will not be a reliable price for the security
to serve as a benchmark for the price of the option. In addition, the
width of the markets might be compromised and, thus, the quality of
execution for retail customers. At the same time, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change will create more certainty on the options
markets encouraging more investors to participate despite the changes
associated with the Plan.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\31\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \32\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \33\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will be
in accordance with the Act as they are merely intended to ensure the
options markets will continue to remain just and equitable with the
implementation of the Plan which is intended to reduce the negative
impacts of a sudden, unanticipated price movement in NMS stocks. The
proposed rule changes would promote this intention in the options
markets while protecting investors participating there. In addition,
similar rule changes will be adopted by other markets in the national
market system in a coordinated manner promoting the public interest.
Creating a more orderly market will promote just and equitable
principles of trade by allowing investors to feel more secure in their
participation in the national

market system after the implementation of the Plan.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intramarket
competition because it applies to all TPHs equally. The Exchange does
not believe the proposed changes will impose any burden on intermarket
competition as the changes are merely being made to protect investors
with the implementation of the Plan. In addition, the proposed changes
will provide certainty of treatment and execution of options orders
during periods of extraordinary market volatility.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CBOE-2013-030 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-CBOE-2013-030. 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 No. SR-CBOE-2013-030 and should be
submitted on or before March 29, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05884 Filed 3-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 56347]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24609]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2017-N-0558; FDA-2017-N-1315; FDA-2011-N-0776; FDA-
2018-N-3038; FDA-2018-N-0405; FDA-2014-N-1048; FDA-2011-N-0908; FDA-
2011-N-0920; and FDA-2018-N-1857]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approvals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of
information collections that have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, 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: The following is a list of FDA information
collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control
number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information
collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements
for the information collections are available on the internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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.

        Table 1--List of Information Collections Approved By OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            OMB control    Date approval
           Title of collection                  No.           expires
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosures in Professional and Consumer       0910-0860       9/30/2020
 Prescription Drug Promotion............
Experimental Study of Risk Information         0910-0861       9/30/2020
 Amount and Location in Direct-to-
 Consumer Print Ads.....................
Reclassification Petitions for Medical         0910-0138       9/30/2021
 Devices................................
Request for Samples and Protocols.......       0910-0206       9/30/2021
Medical Device Recall Authority.........       0910-0432       9/30/2021
Food Safety, Health, and Diet Survey....       0910-0345      10/31/2020
Medical Device Labeling Regulations.....       0910-0485      10/30/2021
GFI: Clinical Trial Sponsors on the            0910-0581      10/31/2021
 Establishment and Operation of Clinical
 Trial Data Monitoring Committees.......
Current Good Manufacturing Practice and        0910-0751      10/31/2021
 Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based
 Preventive Controls for Human Food.....
Current Good Manufacturing Practice and        0910-0789      10/31/2021
 Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based
 Preventive Controls for Food for
 Animals................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: November 5, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-24609 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42100]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0001]

Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research Rare Diseases Public Workshop: Strategies, Tools, and Best
Practices for Effective Advocacy in Rare Diseases Drug Development

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER), is sponsoring a public workshop
entitled ``CDER Rare Diseases Public Workshop: Strategies, Tools, and
Best Practices for Effective Advocacy in Rare Diseases Drug
Development.'' This public workshop builds upon previous CDER patient
advocacy public workshops and is primarily for the rare disease
community to help them effectively understand what FDA needs to enhance
drug development. This effort is consistent with FDA's efforts to
support the integration of patient experience in drug development
programs, including through implementation of the ``Patient-Focused
Drug Development'' provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures
Act). This public workshop will include case studies demonstrating the
beneficial overlap of effective advocacy techniques and FDA regulations
in rare disease drug development.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on October 30, 2017, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at FDA White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 (the Great Room), Silver Spring, MD
20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA
employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check
procedures will be performed. For parking and security information,
please refer to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis Kalush, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing a public workshop entitled
``CDER Rare Diseases Public Workshop: Strategies, Tools, and Best
Practices for Effective Advocacy in Rare Diseases Drug Development.''
The purpose of the public workshop, consistent with FDA's broad effort
to more comprehensively include patients' perspectives and experiences
with a disease or condition in the drug development process, including
through implementation of the ``Patient-Focused Drug Development''
provisions of the Cures Act, is to aid in bridging the gap between rare
disease patients' stories and data needed to support drug development.
This public workshop will include presentations on strategies, tools,
and best practices on key aspects of rare diseases drug development and
engaging with FDA. There will be an opportunity for questions and
answers following each presentation.
    Registration: There is no registration fee to attend the public
workshop. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited,
and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. There
will be no onsite registration. Persons interested in attending this
public workshop must register online at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm565398.htm before September 30, 2017. For those without
internet access, please contact Francis Kalush (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) to register.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Francis Kalush (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later
than October 23, 2017.
    Transcripts: A transcript of the public workshop will be available
for review at the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov approximately 30 days
after the public workshop. Transcripts will also be available in either
hard copy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information
request. The Freedom of Information office address is available on the
Agency's Web site at https://www.fda.gov.

    Dated: August 30, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-18810 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49841-49842]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0487]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for
the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0697.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, 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.

Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency
Service Delivery

OMB Control Number 0910-0697--Extension

    The information collection activity will garner qualitative
customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner in
accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service
delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides
useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical
surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the
population of study. This voluntary feedback will provide insights into
customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations,
provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on
areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might
improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow
for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the
Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback
to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful
information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address the following: The
target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling
frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate,

methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for
data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be
undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of
influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be
eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed
to yield quantitative results.
    In the Federal Register of June 15, 2017 (82 FR 27508), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
                  Activity                       Number of     responses per   Total annual           Average burden per response           Total hours
                                                respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focus groups................................             800               1             800  1.75......................................           1,400
Customer comment cards/forms................           1,325               1           1,325  0.25 (15 minutes).........................          331.25
Small discussion groups.....................             800               1             800  1.75......................................           1,400
Customer satisfaction surveys...............          12,000               1          12,000  0.33 (20 minutes).........................           3,960
Usability studies...........................             800               1             800  1.75......................................           1,400
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..........................................        8,491.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: October 24, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-23443 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70435-70436]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 350

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026]
RIN 1660-ZA21

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency
Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants
(NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), concurrently
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is issuing final guidance
entitled ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological
Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power
Plants'' (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2). This final guidance document
focuses on preparedness for radiological incidents at commercial
nuclear power plants that could impact public health and safety.

DATES: This final guidance document was issued in December 2019.

ADDRESSES: This final guidance document is available online at http://www.regulations.gov and on FEMA's website at http://www.fema.gov. The
proposed and final guidance documents, all related Federal Register
Notices, and all public comments received during the comment period are
available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026.
You may also view a hard copy of the final guidance document at the
Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW, Washington, DC 20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Eberst, Policy Supervisor,
Policy and Regulations Branch, Technological Hazards Division, National
Preparedness Directorate, Resilience<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(202) 341-4917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of the domestic licensing of
commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs), the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
evaluate emergency preparedness activities at and around these
facilities. Emergency preparedness activities for a radiological
incident at an NPP are essential for communities that could be affected
by an incident at the facility. FEMA's role in the licensing process is
to review and evaluate the adequacy of the planning and preparedness
activities and capabilities of State, local, and Tribal governments and
provide its findings and determinations to the NRC. FEMA performs this
activity before the NRC issues a license to operate a NPP and then
provides ongoing findings and determinations that planning and
preparedness efforts are effective and consistent with regulatory
guidelines. The NRC evaluates applicants for NPP site permits,
construction permits, and operating licenses. As a part of that
evaluation, the NRC reviews the licensees' emergency plans and
preparedness efforts. NPP licensees and State, local, and Tribal
governments within the emergency planning zones surrounding commercial
NPPs must show that plans are in place that provide reasonable
assurance that adequate protective measures will be taken to protect
public health and safety in the event of an incident at an NPP.
    In November 1980, FEMA issued ``Criteria for Preparation and
Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in
Support of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1)''
jointly with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). (45 FR 85862,
Dec. 30, 1980). NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 provides guidance on the
16 Planning Standards referenced in FEMA's regulations at 44 CFR 350.5
and the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.47. Both agencies use these
Planning Standards, and associated Evaluation Criteria contained in
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, to evaluate the adequacy of emergency
plans and preparedness of NPP owners and operators, and the State,
local, and Tribal government jurisdictions in which NPPs are sited.
    Since the publication of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 in 1980,
four supplementary documents and one addendum (66 FR 22270, May 3,
2001) have been issued that update and modify specific planning and
procedural elements. Since publication of these documents, there have
been changes to FEMA and NRC regulations, guidance, policies and
advances in technology. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2 consolidates the
four supplementary documents and one addendum, clarifies the
relationship of radiological emergency planning and preparedness to the
larger National Preparedness System and its components, and provides
updates and additional guidance reflective of over 30 years of
improvements and lessons learned in the radiological emergency
preparedness community.
    To begin this revision process, FEMA held two public meetings on
August 22, 2012 and September 13, 2012 to discuss the scope of the
proposed revision to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 (77 FR 46766, Aug.
6, 2012). Based on feedback from the two public meetings, FEMA
solicited comments from stakeholders and interested members of the
public on the scope of future revisions to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.
1 (77 FR 65700, Oct. 30, 2012). A series of stakeholder engagement
sessions were held on October 29-31, 2013 and June 25, 2014. Summaries
of the stakeholder engagement sessions are posted to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov under Document ID:
FEMA-2012-0026-0055 and FEMA-2012-0026-0053, respectively.
    The NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2 draft was posted to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal for public comment (80 FR 30697, May 29, 2015). The
original comment period was scheduled to conclude on August 27, 2015,
however, several commenters requested an extension beyond the original
90-day comment period. Commenters cited the voluminous material put
forth by the agencies for comment and that the proposed guidance
document covered many policy matters that required a time consuming
review by licensees and their offsite counterparts. FEMA and the NRC
determined that it was in the interest of all parties to extend the
comment period to October 13, 2015 (80 FR 50862, Aug. 21, 2015). Most
of the changes made to the proposed guidance document are clarifying,
non-substantive changes that reflect current practice.
    FEMA and the NRC are issuing the final guidance document:
``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency
Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants''
(NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2). The final guidance document included
adjudication of 631 comments from 32 commenters. FEMA and the NRC
prepared a comment/response matrix entitled ``Adjudication Report for
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2 Public Comments Sorted by Document Order
December 2019'' that may be viewed at www.regulations.gov under Docket
ID FEMA-2012-0026. The substantive changes in the final guidance
document align with the national preparedness doctrine, as directed by
the President in directives and supported by the National Preparedness
System (NPS).

Additionally, this final guidance document incorporates the
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program guidance into the NPS, thus
ensuring that it is risk- and threat-informed and appropriate for the
whole community.
    The contents of this final guidance document do not have the force
and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This
final guidance document is intended only to provide clarity to the
public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency
policies.
    Implementation: The timeframe for transition to the final guidance
document, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological
Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power
Plants'' (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2), will vary amongst State,
local, and Tribal governments and will be tied to their individual
exercise cycle. FEMA intends to work with each jurisdiction to
determine the best timeframe for transition, taking both the level of
effort and where each is within their exercise cycle into account.

    Authority:  NRC Authorization Acts of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-295) and
1982-1983 (Pub. L. 97-415); Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, Titles II and VI, Sections 201
and 611, 42 U.S.C. 5131 and 5196; Homeland Security Act of 2002, as
amended, Title VI, Chapter 1, Subchapter V, Sections 503 and 504, 6
U.S.C. 313 and 314; Security and Accountability for Every Port Act
of 2006, Title V, Section 612, 6 U.S.C. 314a; Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations for 1999, 42 U.S.C. 5196e; Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006, Title VI, Sections 602, 642, 643, and
644, 6 U.S.C. 701, 742, 743, and 744; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978; E.O. 12241, as amended; E.O. 12127, as amended. E.O. 12148, as
amended; E.O. 12657, as amended; FEMA's regulations in title 44,
chapter I, parts 350-354 of the CFR.

    Dated: November 27, 2019.
Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-27384 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-46-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35306-35308]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0601; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-033-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI) Model 205A, 205A-1, and 205B
helicopters with certain starter/generator power cable assemblies
(power cable assemblies). This proposed AD is prompted by the
determination that the power cable assembly connector (connector) can
deteriorate, causing a short in the connector that may lead to a fire.
This AD would require replacing the power cable assemblies and their
associated parts, and performing continuity readings. We are proposing
this AD to prevent a short in the connector that may lead to a fire in
the starter/generator, smoke in the cockpit that reduces visibility,
and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations

Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Shaw, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for the BHTI Model 205A, 205A-1, and
205B helicopters with power cable assemblies, part number (P/N) 205-
075-902-017 and P/N 205-075-911-007. The AD would require replacing the
power cable assemblies with airworthy power cable assemblies, P/N 205-
075-265-103 and 205-075-265-105S, and replacing associated parts
included in the starter/generator cable kit, P/N CT205-07-94-1. After
the power cable assemblies and associated parts are replaced, the AD
would require performing a continuity test at the power cable
connections using a multimeter. This proposal is prompted by the
determination that the connector can deteriorate, causing a short in
the connector P81 (J81) pins. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in a fire in the starter/generator, smoke in the cockpit that
could reduce visibility, and subsequent loss of structural integrity
and helicopter control.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    We have reviewed BHTI Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 205-07-94,
Revision A, dated December 8, 2008, for Model 205A and 205A-1
helicopters; and BHTI ASB No. 205B-08-50, dated December 8, 2008, for
the Model 205B helicopter. These ASBs describe procedures for replacing
the power cable assemblies and associated parts. The ASBs specify that
operators can obtain a starter/generator cable kit that contains the
required replacement parts.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within six months, replacing the
power cable assemblies and associated parts with airworthy parts
contained in the starter/generator kit, and performing a continuity
test using a multimeter. The actions would be required to be
accomplished by following specified portions of the ASBs described
previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 31 helicopters of
U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 10 work-hours per
helicopter to accomplish at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour.
Required parts would cost about $12,654 for the power cable assembly
replacement kit. Based on these figures, the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators would be $13,504 per helicopter, or $418,624 for the
fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
Airworthiness Directive (AD):

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI): Docket No. FAA-2012-0601;
Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-033-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to BHTI Model 205A, 205A-1, and 205B helicopters
with starter/generator power cable assemblies (power cable
assemblies), part numbers (P/N) 205-075-902-017 and P/N 205-075-911-
007 installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the determination that the power cable
assembly connector (connector) can deteriorate, causing a short in
the connector that may lead to a fire. We are issuing this AD to
prevent a short in the connector that may lead to a fire in the
starter/generator, smoke in the cockpit that reduces visibility, and
subsequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(d) Required Actions

    Within six months, replace the power cable assemblies using the
parts contained in starter/generator kit P/N CT205-07-94-1, perform
a continuity test, and connect wires to the starter generator as
follows:
    (1) For Model 205A and 205A-1 helicopters, follow the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 2 through 16(c), of BHTI
Alert Service Bulletin No. 205-07-94, Revision A, dated December 8,
2008.
    (2) For the Model 205B helicopters, follow the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraphs 2 through 16(c), of BHTI Alert Service
Bulletin No. 205B-08-50, dated December 8, 2008.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Andy Shaw, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2497, electrical
power system wiring.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 25, 2012.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-14401 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71517-71518]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0226]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Milford Haven, Hudgins, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily modifying the operating
schedule that governs the SR223 (Gwynn's Island) Bridge, across Milford
Haven, mile 0.1, at Hudgins, Virginia. The temporary modification will
allow the drawbridge to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation
position and is necessary to accommodate bridge maintenance.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from December 23, 2022,
through 11 p.m. on April 15, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Type the
docket number USCG-2022-0226 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' In the Document Type column, select ``Supporting & Related
Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email Ms. Crystal Tucker, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard telephone 757-398-
6422, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On June 14, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking, with a request for comments, entitled Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Milford Haven, Hudgins, VA in the Federal Register 87 FR
35939. There, we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on
our proposed regulatory action related to the bridge maintenance.
During the comment period that ended July 1, 2022, we received no
comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The SR223 (Gwynn's Island) Bridge, across Milford Haven, mile 0.1,
at Hudgins, Virginia has a vertical clearance of 12 feet above mean
high water in the closed position and unlimited vertical clearance
above mean high water in the open position. The current operating
schedule for the drawbridge is published in 33 CFR 117.5.
    This temporary rule is necessary to facilitate safe and effective
maintenance of the drawbridge. Under this temporary rule, the
drawbridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The bridge will not be able
to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for
vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position.
Vessels that can safely transit through the bridge in the closed
position with the reduced clearance must provide at least a thirty-
minute notice to allow for navigation safety. The SR223 (Gwynn's
Island) Bridge is the only land-based method for access on and off
Gwynn's Island, therefore, placing the bridge in the open position to
perform extensive bridge maintenance would adversely affect residents
on the island.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
499.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Temporary Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 16 days and no
comments were received. No changes were made to the regulatory text of
this temporary final rule.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is a result of pre rulemaking
coordination with maritime stakeholders including federal agencies.
This proposed rule effectively balances

the competing interests of land and maritime transportation.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded
from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of
the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Effective December 23, 2022, through April 15, 2023, add Sec.
117.1017T to read as follows:

Sec.  117. 1017T   Milford Haven.

    The draw of the SR223 (Gwynn's Island) Bridge, mile 0.1, in
Hudgins, need not be open for vessels.

    Dated: November 10, 2022.
S.N. Gilreath,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-25528 Filed 11-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 46116-46117]
[DOCID:fr07au08-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58261; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-66]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending NYSE Rule 431 To Make Permanent the Portfolio Margin Pilot
Program

July 30, 2008.
    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 July 29, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 431 (``Margin
Requirements'') to make permanent the portfolio margin pilot program
set forth in NYSE Rule 431(g), which permits members to margin certain
products according to a prescribed portfolio margin methodology. The
proposed rule change conforms NYSE Rule 431 to proposed amendments
filed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'')
to its version of NYSE Rule 431.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On July 30, 2007, NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation'') consolidated their member firm regulation operations into
a combined organization, FINRA.\4\ Pursuant to FINRA's new regulatory
responsibilities, FINRA amended its version of NYSE Rule 431(g) to make
permanent a portfolio margin pilot program that permits member firms to
elect to margin certain products according to a prescribed portfolio
margin methodology and is set to expire on July 31, 2008.\5\ The NYSE
is proposing to amend NYSE Rule 431 to conform to the recently filed
change to FINRA's incorporated version of NYSE Rule 431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''), NYSE, NYSE Regulation, and NASD entered into an
agreement (the ``Agreement'') to reduce regulatory duplication for
firms that are members of FINRA and also members of NYSE on or after
July 30, 2007 (``Dual Members''), by allocating to FINRA certain
regulatory responsibilities for selected NYSE rules. The Agreement
includes a list of all of those rules (``Common Rules'') for which
FINRA has assumed regulatory responsibilities. See Exchange Act
Release No. 56148 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007)
(Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan
for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities). The Common Rules
are the same NYSE rules that FINRA has incorporated into its
rulebook. See Exchange Act Release No. 56417 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR
42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-054) (Notice of Filing and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to
Incorporate Certain NYSE Rules Relating to Member Firm Conduct).
Paragraph 2(b) of the 17d-2 Agreement sets forth procedures
regarding proposed changes by either NYSE or FINRA to the substance
of any of the Common Rules.
    \5\ See SR-FINRA-2008-041, filed July 25, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The implementation date of the proposed rule change is August 1,
2008, which is the implementation date of FINRA's identical amendments
to its version of NYSE Rule 431.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written
notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has requested and the Commission has agreed
waive this pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes the
waiver of this period will allow it to immediately conform NYSE Rule
431 to FINRA's proposed amendments to its version of NYSE Rule 431, in
furtherance of the consolidation of the member firm regulation
functions of NYSE Regulation and NASD. As provided in paragraph 2(b) of
the Agreement, FINRA and NYSE will, absent a disagreement about the
substance of a proposed rule change to one of the Common Rules,
promptly propose conforming changes to ensure that such rules continue
to be Common Rules under the Agreement. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the
customer portfolio margining program to continue uninterrupted as it
would otherwise expire on July 31, 2008.\12\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change effective upon filing
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-66. 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSE-2008-66 and should be submitted on or before August
28, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18075 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P