[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 2854]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Regional
Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' and Board of
Directors' Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) Regional Entity Trustee (RE), Regional
State Committee (RSC), SPP Members Committee and Board of Directors, as
noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing
outreach efforts.
    All meetings will be held at the Skirvin Hotel, One Park Ave.,
Oklahoma City, OK 73102. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SPP RE
    January 25, 2016 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)
SPP RSC
    January 25, 2016 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.)
SPP Members/Board of Directors
    January 26, 2016 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. EL11-34, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-60, Southwest Power Pool, Inc., et al.
Docket No. ER12-1179, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1586, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1864, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1937, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1939, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL14-21, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL14-30, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL15-66, Southern Company Services, et al. v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator
Docket No. EL15-77, Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-67, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-1174, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-2022, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-2445, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-2553, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-1499, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-1737, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-2069, Northwestern Corporation
Docket No. ER15-2115, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-2265, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-2324, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-2347, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-2351, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-2356, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL16-20, Grid Assurance LLC
Docket No. ER16-13, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-165, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-204, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-209, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-228, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-231, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-232, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-241, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-242, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-244, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-245, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-247, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-383, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-387, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-420, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-430, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-460, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-461, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-483, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-511, Southwestern Public Service Company
Docket No. ER16-515, Public Service Company of Oklahoma
Docket No. ER16-539, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-625, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-626, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-636, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 12, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00818 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22536-22537]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-D-1238]

Celiac Disease: Developing Drugs for Adjunctive Treatment to a
Gluten-Free Diet; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Celiac
Disease: Developing Drugs for Adjunctive Treatment to a Gluten-Free
Diet.'' This draft guidance addresses FDA's recommendations regarding
clinical trials for drugs being developed for the treatment of celiac
disease as an adjunct to a gluten-free diet in adults.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by June 14, 2022 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

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

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-D-1238 for ``Celiac Disease: Developing Drugs for Adjunctive
Treatment to a Gluten-Free Diet.'' Received comments will be placed in
the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the

Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 or the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Whitehead, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 3362, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-4945; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
71, Rm. 7268, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Celiac Disease: Developing Drugs for Adjunctive Treatment to
a Gluten-Free Diet.'' This guidance addresses FDA's current
recommendations on clinical trials for drugs being developed for the
treatment of celiac disease as an adjunct to a gluten-free diet in
adults, including recommendations for eligibility criteria, trial
design features, efficacy evaluations, clinical outcome assessments,
and safety assessments.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on ``Celiac
Disease: Developing Drugs for Adjunctive Treatment to a Gluten-Free
Diet.'' It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 58, 21 CFR parts 312 and 314, and
21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0130,
0910-0014, 0910-0001, and 0910-0338 respectively.

III. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: April 11, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-08116 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


recordkeeping of
                                                    actions taken during
                                                    malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Yes.               .....................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v).....  No.                .....................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)...  Yes.               .....................
63.(10)(b)(3).................  Yes.               .....................
63.10(c)(1)-(9)...............  Yes.               .....................
63.10(c)(10)-(11).............  No                 See 63.1629 and
                                                    63.1630 for
                                                    recordkeeping of
                                                    malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)..........  Yes.               .....................
63.10(c)(15)..................  No.                .....................
63.10(d)(1)-(4)...............  Yes.               .....................
63.10(d)(5)...................  No                 See 63.1629(d)(8) and
                                                    63.1659(a)(4) for
                                                    reporting of
                                                    malfunctions.
63.10(e)-((f).................  Yes.               .....................
63.11.........................  No                 Flares will not be
                                                    used to comply with
                                                    the emission limits.
63.12 to 63.15................  Yes.               .....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-29455 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40069]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0760]

Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Seventh Coast
Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the
Ironman Triathlon in Augusta, Georgia on 24 September 2017, to provide
for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our
regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District
identifies the regulated area for this event in Augusta, GA. During the
enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area
must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official
Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to Sec.  100.701(f),
Line No. 3, will be enforced on September 24, 2017 from 6 a.m. until 12
p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email MST2 Adam White, Marine Safety
Unit Savannah Office of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 233, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce special local
regulations in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to Sec.  100.701(f), COTP Zone
Savannah; Special Local Regulations, Line no. 3, from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m.
on September 24, 2017 for the Ironman Triathlon. This action is being
taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during
this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast
Guard District, Sec.  100.701, specifies the location of the regulated
area for the Ironman Triathlon which encompasses portions of the
Savannah River and its branches. During the enforcement periods, as
reflected in Sec.  100.100(c), if you are the operator of a vessel in
the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol
Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification
of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Security Bulletins, and on-scene
designated representatives.

    Dated: August 18, 2017.
N.C. Witt,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Savannah.
[FR Doc. 2017-17962 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 234)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64641-64643]
[DOCID:fr08de09-10]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0890]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chambers Creek, Steilacoom, WA,
Schedule Change

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the drawbridge operation
regulation for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge across
Chambers Creek, mile 0.0, at Steilacoom, Washington, so that two-hour
notice would be required for openings from 3:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. every
day. Openings at all other times would be on signal. The proposed rule
is necessary to reduce the bridge staffing requirements during periods
of infrequent openings.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2009-0890 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, Waterways
Management Branch, 13th Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0890), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility.
We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-
mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we
can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0890'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8[frac12] by
11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0890'' and click
``Search''. Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a
request using one of the four methods under ADDRESSES. Please explain
why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The proposed rule will change current regulations so that
Burlington Northern

Railroad, the owner of the Chambers Creek Bridge, will only be required
to raise the draw of the bridge between 3:30 p.m. and 7 a.m. everyday
if at least two hours of notice is provided. At all other times the
draw will be required to be raised on signal.
    From February 16, 2009 through June 30, 2009 the draw opened 127
times for vessels. These records indicate that the lift span has opened
on average once a day during that period. Due to the infrequent need to
open the draw, the railroad company requested this change to reduce
unnecessary staffing of the bridge.
    The operating regulations currently in effect for the Chambers
Creek Bridge are found at 33 CFR Part 117, Subpart A, the general
operating regulations for drawbridges. It must open promptly on signal
at any time, which requires constant attendance by drawtenders.
    The waterway traffic at this drawbridge is confined to recreational
vessels that moor just inside the mouth and upstream of the bridge in
Chambers Creek. The creek is a tributary of Puget Sound.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 117 by adding Sec.
117.1030 Chambers Creek to Subpart B of 33 CFR Part 117. The language
of the new section would require the draw of the bridge to be raised
between 3:30 p.m. and 7 a.m. everyday only if at least two hours of
notice is provided. At all other times the draw will be required to be
raised on signal.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard has made
this determination based on the fact that the proposed rule will have
little, if any, impact on the ability of vessels to pass under the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge across Chambers Creek
since the draw rarely has to open for vessel traffic and vessel
operators will still be able to have the draw opened either on signal
or by giving 2 hours notice depending on the time of day.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the proposed rule will have little, if
any, impact on the ability of vessels to pass under the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge across Chambers Creek since the draw
rarely has to open for vessel traffic and vessel operators will still
be able to have the draw opened either on signal or by giving 2 hours
notice depending on the time of day.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how, and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    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 proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge
Section, Waterways Management Branch, 13th Coast Guard District, at
(206) 220-7282. 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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not designated this as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does
not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    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.

    2. Add Sec.  117.1030 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1030  Chambers Creek.

    The draw of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge across
Chambers Creek, mile 0.0, at Steilacoom shall open on signal if at
least two-hour notice is given between 3:30 p.m. and 7 a.m. daily. At
all other times the bridge shall open on signal.

    Dated: October 15, 2009.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E9-29128 Filed 12-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65148-65149]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC20-3-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-574); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection FERC- 574 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Hinshaw
Exemption) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due January 27,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC20-3-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-574 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Hinshaw Exemption).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0116.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-574 with no
changes to the current reporting requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission uses the information collected under the

requirements of FERC-574 to implement the statutory provisions of
Sections 1(c), 4, and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Natural gas
pipeline companies file applications with the Commission furnishing
information in order to facilitate a determination of an applicant's
qualification for an exemption under the provisions of the section
1(c). If the Commission grants an exemption, the natural gas pipeline
company is not required to file certificate applications, rate
schedules, or any other applications or forms prescribed by the
Commission.
    The exemption applies to companies engaged in the transportation,
sale, or resale of natural gas in interstate commerce if: (a) They
receive gas at or within the boundaries of the state from another
person at or within the boundaries of that state; (b) such gas is
ultimately consumed in such state; (c) the rates, service and
facilities of such company are subject to regulation by a State
Commission; and (d) that such State Commission is exercising that
jurisdiction. 18 CFR part 152 specifies the data required to be filed
by pipeline companies for an exemption.
    Type of Respondents: Pipeline companies.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost \2\ for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a federal agency. See 5 CFR 1320 for
additional information on the definition of information collection
burden.
    \2\ Commission staff estimates that the industry's skill set and
cost (for wages and benefits) for FERC-574 are approximately the
same as the Commission's average cost. The FERC 2019 average salary
plus benefits for one FERC full-time equivalent (FTE) is $167,091/
year (or $80.00/hour).

                                                 FERC-574, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Hinshaw Exemption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of
     Number of  respondents       responses per   Total number of    Average burden hours & average   Total annual burden hours & total    Cost ($) per
                                    respondent        responses          cost ($) per  response                annual cost ($)              respondent
(1)                                         (2)   (1) * (2) = (3)  (4)..............................  (3) * (4) = (5)..................  (5) / (1) = (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..............................               1                2   60 hours; $4,800.................  120 hours; $9,600................          $4,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 20, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25621 Filed 11-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36438-36440]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-0464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-046-AD;
Amendment 39-18549; AD 2016-11-22]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD
was prompted by the need for more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate certain maintenance requirement
tasks, thresholds, and intervals. We are issuing this AD to reduce the
potential for significant failure conditions and consequent loss of
controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective July 12, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 12,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357,
2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax
+31 (0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-0464.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
0464; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V.
Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on February 18, 2016 (81 FR 8166) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM was prompted by the need for more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate certain maintenance
requirement tasks, thresholds, and intervals. We are issuing this AD to
reduce the potential for significant failure conditions and consequent
loss of controllability of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0027, dated February 20, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services
B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fokker Services published issue 11 of Engineering Report SE-473,
containing Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs). This
report is Part 1 of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS Part
1) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, referred to in
Section 06, Appendix 1, of the Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review
Board (MRB) document.
    The complete ALS currently consists of:
    Part 1--Report SE-473 (CMRs), Part 2--Report SE-623,
Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs) and Safe Life Items (SLIs),
and Part 3--Report SE-672, Fuel ALIs and Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs).
    The instructions contained in those reports have been identified
as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
implementation of the maintenance actions as specified in ALS Part 1
of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Fokker Services
Engineering Report SE-473 at issue 11.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
0464.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Changes to Paragraph Reference

    We have updated paragraph (h) of this AD. In paragraph (h) of the
NPRM, we inadvertently referenced paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM.
Paragraph (h) of this AD has been updated to reference paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed ``Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance
Requirements,'' of Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report,
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), SE-473, Issue 11, released
January 19, 2015. This service information describes certification
maintenance requirements. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD on U.S. operators to be $680, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-11-22 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-18549. Docket No. FAA-
2016-0464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-046-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and
0100 airplanes,

certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the need for more restrictive
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to reduce the
potential for significant failure conditions and consequent loss of
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise
the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
the certification maintenance requirements (CMR) specified in
``Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,'' of Fokker
Services B.V. Engineering Report, Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS), SE-473, Issue 11, released January 19, 2015.
    (2) Do the applicable initial CMR inspection at the time
specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as
applicable, as specified in ``Fokker 70/100 Certification
Maintenance Requirements,'' of Fokker Services B.V. Engineering
Report, ALS, SE-473, Issue 11, released January 19, 2015. If any
discrepancy is found during any inspection, repair using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency;
or Fokker B.V. Service's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Repair any discrepancy before further flight.
    (i) For CMR inspection 783100-CM-01: Within 1 year or 3,000
flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, but not later than 12,000 flight hours after accomplishing
Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Task 783100-00-04.
    (ii) For CMR inspection 783500-CM-01: Within 1 year or 3,000
flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, but not later than 10,000 flight hours after accomplishing
MRB Task 783100-01-01.

(h) No Alternative Inspections or Inspection Intervals

    After accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) and
intervals, may be used, unless the actions or intervals are approved
as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA;
or Fokker Services B.V.'s EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0027, dated February 20, 2015, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-0464.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report, Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS), SE-473, Issue 11, released January 19,
2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130
EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 26, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-13101 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 54499-54504]
[DOCID:fr25se07-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56455; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to NYSE Rule 104.10
(``Dealings by Specialists'')

September 18, 2007.
    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 September 14, 2007 the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
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 is proposing to amend NYSE Rule 104.10 to: (i) Extend
the duration of the pilot program applicable to Conditional
Transactions as defined in Rule 104.10(6)(iv) to March 31, 2008; (ii)
remove the ``active securities'' limitation on Conditional Transactions
that establish or increase a specialist's position and reach across the
market to transact with the NYSE's published quote; and (iii) make
certain conforming changes to Rule 104.10(5). The text of the proposed
rule change is available at NYSE, the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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 NYSE 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 NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    (1) Rule Filing History.
    On October 5, 2006, to coincide with the Exchange's implementation
of Phase III of the NYSE HYBRID MARKET\SM\, the NYSE began operating on
a pilot basis, among other rules, changes to Rule 104.10
(``Stabilization Rule'').\3\ The Stabilization Rule governs
specialists' dealings in assigned stocks including restrictions on
specialists' ability to trade as a dealer in their assigned stocks. As
will be described in greater detail below, the Stabilization Proposal
provided additional opportunities for specialists to trade on a
proprietary basis. On December 1, 2006, the Commission approved the
Stabilization Proposal but required that subsection 104.10(6) of the
Rule continue to operate as a pilot (``Conditional Transactions'')
through June 30, 2007.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54578 (October 5,
2006), 71 FR 60216 (October 12, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-82). On October
6, 2006, NYSE specialist firms LaBranche & Co. and Kellogg
Specialist Group commenced operating pursuant to the Stabilization
Rule in two NYSE-listed securities, American Express Company (AXP)
and Equity Office Property Trust (EOP), respectively.
    The operation of the Pilot implemented pursuant to SR-NYSE-2006-
82 was later modified on October 13, 2006 to, among other things,
clarify that Rule 104.10(6) was included in the operation of the
Pilot. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54610 (October 16,
2006), 71 FR 62142 (October 23, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-84).
    The proposed amendments to the Stabilization Rule (collectively
referred to herein as ``Stabilization Proposal'') were filed on
September 22, 2006 in SR-NYSE-2006-76. On October 25, 2006, the
Exchange amended SR-NYSE-2006-76 to clarify certain provisions of
the proposal, which was ultimately approved by the Commission on
December 1, 2006. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54860
(December 1, 2006), 71 FR 71221 (December 8, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-
76).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54860, supra note 3.
On June 28, 2007 the Exchange filed with the Commission to extend
the operation of the Stabilization Pilot until September 30, 2007.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55995 (June 29, 2007), 72 FR
37288 (July 9, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Summary of the Stabilization Proposal.
    Rule 104 governs specialist dealings in the market. Specialists'
transactions for their own accounts are subject to specific
expectations of performance. These include a specialist's affirmative
and negative obligations. Pursuant to these obligations specialists
have a duty to ensure that his or her principal transactions are
designed to contribute to the maintenance of price continuity with
reasonable depth.
    The affirmative obligation requires a registered specialist to
maintain adequate minimum capital based on his or her registered
securities and use said capital to engage in a course of dealings for
his or her own account to assist in the maintenance, so far as
practicable, of a fair and orderly market.\5\ Thus, pursuant to the
affirmative obligations, registered dealers on primary exchanges are
required to commit the dealer's capital in their registered securities
in order to maintain a fair and orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 17 CFR 240.11b-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The negative obligation, which is part of Exchange Rule 104
requires that specialists allow public orders to be executed against
each other without undue dealer intervention and that specialists not
deal in a manner that is inconsistent with the overall objective of
maintaining a fair and orderly market. Specifically, Rule 104(a)
provides:

    No specialist shall effect on the Exchange purchases or sales of
any security in which such specialist is registered, for any account
in which he, his member organization or any other member, allied
member, or approved person, (unless an exemption with respect to
such approved person is in effect pursuant to Rule 98) in such
organization or officer or employee thereof is directly or
indirectly interested, unless such dealings are reasonably necessary
to permit such specialist to maintain a fair and orderly market, or
to act as an odd-lot dealer in such security.

    Thus, prior to the Stabilization Proposal, NYSE Rule 104.10(5)
required that specialist proprietary transactions be effected in a
reasonable and orderly manner in relation to the general market, the
market in their assigned stocks, and the adequacy of the specialist's
position to the immediate and reasonably anticipated needs of the
market. For example, a specialist was not permitted to effect a
transaction that would acquire or increase a position unless it was
necessary to render the specialist's position adequate for the
immediate or anticipated needs of the market. Specialists were
precluded from purchasing stock at a price above the last sale (in the
same trading session) or from purchasing more than 50% of the stock
offered on a ``zero plus tick'' (i.e. at the same price as the last
sale, when such last sale was higher than the previous, differently
priced sale of stock on the Exchange). Rule 104.10(6) applied similar
standards when a specialist was liquidating or reducing a position. A
specialist could, however, effect these types of transactions with the
approval of a floor official.
    The Stabilization Proposal retained the basic standard that a
specialist's dealings must be reasonably necessary for the maintenance
of a fair and orderly market, and that transactions that are with the
trend of the market may have to be accompanied by appropriate re-entry
on the opposite side of the market. In place of the then existing last
transaction or ``tick'' test, the Exchange proposed to identify four
types of transactions: ``Neutral,'' ``Non-Conditional'' ``Conditional''
and ``Prohibited.''
    Neutral Transactions are purchases or sales that liquidate or
decrease a specialist's position. These transactions must be effected
in a fair and orderly manner to render the specialist position adequate
to the market's needs, consistent with the specialist's negative
obligations, but are not subject to price restrictions or to floor
official approval. The obligation to maintain a fair and orderly market
may require the specialist to enter the market on the opposite side,
which could be the case if market conditions required the specialist to
meet his affirmative obligations. The NYSE's rationale for this change
was based in part on the recognition that position-reducing
transactions are beneficial to the market because the specialists are
adding liquidity to the market.
    Non-Conditional Transactions are seven enumerated types of trades
which increase or establish a position other than transactions that
reach across the market.\6\ Specialists are permitted to effect these
transactions without regard to price and without floor official
approval. The NYSE believes that these transactions, because they
reflect instances where an independent source establishes the price,
are unlikely to create a conflict of interest or to ``lead the
market.'' Even though these transactions may establish the bid or
offer, they are initiated by other market participants and not by the
specialist. The NYSE also believes that, in the Hybrid Market where
trading is substantially electronic, the speed and frequency of
executions and quote changes preclude the specialist from being able to
track accurately price ticks or to allow for floor official
involvement. Re-entry on the opposite side of the market may be
required for

the specialist to meet its affirmative obligations or to maintain a
fair and orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NYSE Rule 104.10(5)(i)(a)(II)(b) states that the
transactions without regard to price may be made in order to: (i)
Match another market's better bid or offer price; (ii) bring the
price of a security into parity with an underlying or related
security or asset; (iii) add size to an independently established
bid or offer on the exchange; (iv) purchase at the published bid
price on the Exchange; (v) sell at the published offer price on the
Exchange (vi) purchase or sell at a price between the Exchange
published bid and published offer; and (vii) purchase below the
published bid or sell below the published offer on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prohibited Transactions are certain transactions during the last 10
minutes of trading and are designed to prevent the specialist from
setting the closing price.
    Conditional Transactions are specialists' transactions in an active
security that establishes or increases a position and reaches across
the market to trade as the contra-side to the Exchange published bid or
offer. Conditional transactions may only be executed in an ``active
security.'' Active securities include those securities that are part of
the S&P 500 Stock Index\(c)\, securities trading on the Exchange during
the first 5 trading days following their initial public offering, and
securities declared to be active securities by a floor official.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pursuant to current NYSE Rule 104.10(6)(c), a Floor Official
may designate a security active when such security has exhibited
substantially greater than normal trading volume and is, in the
Floor Official's judgment likely to continue to sustain such higher
volume during the remainder of the current trading session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conditional Transactions may have additional re-entry obligations
pursuant to the rule. Specifically, pursuant to NYSE Rule
104.10(6)(iii) ``Appropriate'' re-entry means ``re-entry on the
opposite side of the market at or before the price participation point
or the ``PPP'').\8\ Depending on the type of Conditional Transaction a
specialist's obligation to re-enter may be immediate or subject to the
same re-entry conditions of Non-Conditional Transactions.\9\ In any
event, Conditional Transactions remain subject to a specialist's
overall negative obligation as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NYSE Rule 104.10(6)(iv)(a) provides that the PPP identifies
the price at or before which a specialist is expected to re-enter
the market after effecting a Conditional Transaction. PPPs are only
minimum guidelines and compliance with them does not guarantee that
a specialist is meeting its obligations. The Exchange issued
guidance regarding PPPs in January 2007. See NYSE Member Education
Bulletin 2007-1.
    \9\ NYSE Rule 104.10(6)(iv)(c) requires immediate re-entry
following Conditional Transactions that is:
    (I) A purchase that (1) reaches across the market to trade with
an Exchange published offer that is above the last differently
priced trade on the Exchange and above the last differently priced
published offer on the Exchange, (2) is 10,000 shares or more or has
a market value of $200,000 or more, and (3) exceeds 50% of the
published offer size.
    (II) A sale that (1) reaches across the market to trade with an
Exchange published bid that is below the last differently priced
trade on the Exchange and below the last differently priced
published bid on the Exchange, (2) is 10,000 shares or more or has a
market value of $200,000 or more, and (3) exceeds 50% of the
published bid size.
    Pursuant to current NYSE Rule 104.10(6)(v) Conditional
Transactions that involve:
    (a) A specialist's purchase from the Exchange published offer
that is priced above the last differently-priced trade on the
Exchange or above the last differently-priced published offer on the
Exchange; and
    (b) A specialist's sale to the Exchange published bid that is
priced below the last differently-priced trade on the Exchange or
below the last differently-priced published bid on the Exchange are
subject to the re-entry requirements for Non-Conditional
Transactions pursuant to NYSE Rule 104.10(5)(i)(a)(II)(c).
    Rule 104.10(5)(i)(a)(II)(c) provides:
    Re-entry Obligation Following Non-Conditional Transactions--The
specialist's obligation to maintain a fair and orderly market may
require re-entry on the opposite side of the market trend after
effecting one or more Non-Conditional Transactions. Such re-entry
transactions should be commensurate with the size of the Non-
Conditional Transactions and the immediate and anticipated needs of
the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specialist transactions in securities not within the definition of
``active'' securities continue to be governed by the ``tick test'' and
floor official approval requirements described above that are now set
forth in Rule 104.10(5)(i)(B)(I).
    In the Stabilization Proposal, the Exchange asserted that it
believed the types of transactions described above were suitable for
all securities. While the Commission acknowledged the considerable
changes in the national market system, it stated that it believed that
the Stabilization Proposal represented a significant change in the
roles and obligations of specialist at the Exchange and thus required
that the NYSE to implement the proposed Conditional Transactions only
for active securities as a pilot.\10\ The Commission further stated
that, before it decided whether to extend the operation of the rule or
to approve the rule on a permanent basis, it would require the NYSE to
provide data and analysis on the impact of the rule change.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54860, supra note
3, at 71230.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The Exchange's Analysis of the Conditional Transaction Pilot.
    The Exchange has closely monitored its market quality as it made
changes to its operations, including the implementation of the Hybrid
Market and the pilot that allowed specialists to effect Conditional
Transactions. The Exchange has performed a review \12\ of the market
quality for the period July 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006, compared to
the market quality for the period from April 1, 2007 through June 30,
2007 and the NYSE states that its review shows that overall there has
been a narrowing of the effective spread for marketable orders and a
lowering of volatility. The percentage of trades executed automatically
substantially increased. Other indicators remained generally the same
except for the percentage of times that the NYSE set the National Best
Bid or Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Appendix 3A, which is available on the NYSE Web site at
the following link: http://www.nyse.com/
Frameset.html?displayPage=http://apps.nyse.com/commdata/pub19b4.nsf/
rulefilings?openview.
    Appendix 3A is also available on the Commission Web site at
http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nyse.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange reviewed data related to the specialists'
re-entry requirement. Specifically, the Exchange reviewed the
specialist's re-entry quote and execution activity on the opposite side
of the market at 30-second and one-minute intervals for the month of
April 2007. The Exchange states that the data showed that specialists
effected Conditional Transactions sparingly and that, in those
instances where specialists effected Conditional Transactions, the data
showed that specialist overall complied with their obligations to re-
enter liquidity on the opposite side of the market.
    The Exchange further compared the 84 securities that are listed on
the NYSE and are included in the S&P 500 index (``S&P 500'') operating
in the Conditional Transaction Pilot that that had the lowest
consolidated volume for the months of March and April 2007. The 84
securities were divided into two deciles containing 42 securities per
decile. The Exchange created a matched sample for these two deciles by
finding other NYSE-listed securities not included in the S&P 500
(``non-S&P 500'') that had comparable consolidated volumes, Volume
Weighted Average Price (``VWAP'') and market capital.\13\ The Exchange
believes that its review showed that there was no discernible
difference between the change in market quality in the lowest two
deciles of the S&P 500 securities operating pursuant to the Conditional
Transaction Pilot as compared to similar securities in the non-S&P 500
securities. The Exchange noted a difference in the market quality
statistics for the S&P 500 securities as compared to the non-S&P 500
matched sample. However, upon further review, the Exchange noted that
the differences were present both before and after the Conditional
Transaction Pilot, which suggests that a factor other than the
Conditional Transaction Pilot was the cause of the noted difference.
The Exchange believes that the most probable cause of the noted
difference was the inclusion in the S&P 500. The

stocks in the S&P 500 appear to have inherently different market
quality characteristics from those not in the S&P 500. The changes in
market quality were similar for both groups. The Exchange therefore
believes that the Conditional Transaction Pilot was not the cause of
the market quality differences in the samples. Therefore, the Exchange
believes that the data supports the conclusion that the Conditional
Transaction Pilot has not had a detrimental effect on market quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Appendices 3B and 3C, which are available on the NYSE
Web site at the following link: http://www.nyse.com/
Frameset.html?displayPage=http://apps.nyse.com/commdata/pub19b4.nsf/
rulefilings?openview.
    Appendices 3B and 3C are also available on the Commission Web
site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nyse.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in analyzing the data related to the Conditional Transaction
Pilot, the Exchange believes that it is clear that specialists have
acted appropriately in regard to Conditional Transactions and have re-
entered the market as required, with no discernable adverse impact on
liquidity or market quality. The Exchange therefore believes that
Conditional Transaction Pilot should be modified to include all stocks
traded on the NYSE.
    (4) Inclusion of All NYSE Traded Securities in the Conditional
Transaction Pilot.
    The NYSE now seeks approval to extend the term of the Conditional
Transaction Pilot to March 31, 2008 and to make it applicable to all
securities traded on the NYSE. As explained more fully below, the
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide specialists the
same ability to effect Conditional Transactions in all securities
traded on the Exchange.
    (5) Importance of the Specialist Role to the NYSE's Hybrid Market
Model.
    The Exchange states that the specialist is critical to the NYSE's
Hybrid Market model. Advances in technology have virtually obviated the
specialists' time and place advantage. The rate of trading
participation by specialists in specialist stocks has been
significantly reduced. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the basis
for concern over specialist conflicts of interest (and the consequent
ability to trade to the detriment of the public) is also diminished.
The NYSE believes that these factors and specialist re-entry
obligations support the expansion of specialists trading opportunities
in all of the securities traded on the NYSE.
    The amendments to NYSE Rule 104.10(5) and (6) in this filing should
be seen as part of the NYSE's goal of providing the market with the
ability to seek the best price by submitting orders to a traditional
floor-based auction process or by obtaining virtually instantaneous
execution in an electronic platform. The NYSE believes that specialists
play a critical role in achieving this goal, but it is in many ways a
different role from the ``traditional'' function of specialists prior
to implementation of the NYSE's current market structure. The Exchange
states that, most importantly, it has attempted to balance concerns
over the potential conflict of interest between specialists' agency
function in the auction process and the specialists' ability (and need)
to trade for their own account as a dealer.
    The Exchange believes that specialists provide an extraordinary
benefit to the NYSE market by using their capital to cushion market
volatility. Specialists' capital commitment provides depth, and lowers
volatility and overall execution costs for investors. Furthermore,
specialists add liquidity to the market when there is little or no
liquidity, bridging the gap between supply and demand by purchasing
when no one else is buying and by overall maintaining a fair and
orderly market. In order for specialists to continue providing that
benefit, they must be allowed greater flexibility in trading for their
dealer accounts to be competitive with other market participants in
times of market stability so that they may be adequately positioned to
step in during times of market instability. The Exchange believes that
the ability of the specialists to effect Conditional Transactions
allows specialists, to a greater degree, to manage the inventory of the
dealer account to provide more liquidity against the market trend and
thus moderate volatility.
    Moreover, the NYSE believes human judgment is particularly valuable
in less liquid securities because the service provided by specialists
is even more critical during the opening and closing of trading in such
securities, particularly in times of uncertainty such as when an
earnings surprise, news, or an outside event leads to market volatility
and/or instability. In these cases, the specialists' trading judgment,
exercised in carrying out their affirmative obligations, results in
reduced volatility and more stable prices.
    But while the Hybrid Market is intended to combine the benefits of
specialist and floor broker expertise with the speed, certainty and
anonymity of electronic executions, implementation of this system has
created a significantly different trading environment for specialists.
Historically, the NYSE specialist's unique dual role as broker and
dealer afforded him or her an informational advantage over other market
participants because, in that role, the specialists served as the main
conduit of the order flow information in his or her subject security.
As a result of this information advantage, specialists trading for
their own account were constrained by affirmative and negative
obligations.
    Today, the Exchange believes that there is a virtual elimination of
the informational advantage of the specialist. Certain order types that
previously required specialist intervention for execution are now
handled systemically and automatically. For example, in December 2006
the Exchange changed its stop order handling process to make stop
orders no longer visible to the part of the Display Book that the
specialist ``sees.'' \14\ Currently, when a transaction on the Exchange
results in the election of a stop order that had been received prior to
such transaction, the elected stop order is sent as a market order to
the Display Book and the specialist's system employing algorithms where
it is handled in the same way as any other market order. The specialist
therefore has no information regarding the status of stop orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54820 (November 27,
2006), 71 FR 70824 (December 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-65) (clarifying
certain definitions and the systematic processing of certain orders
in the Hybrid Market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the quantity and quality of information that is available
solely to the specialist has decreased. In the auction market, the
specialist had information about all orders on the Display Book and
also received information from the Crowd. Floor Brokers, Registered
Competitive Market Makers (``RCMMs'') and Competitive Traders (``CTs'')
all interacted verbally with the specialists and each other in the
Crowd at the trading post for each security. Through this interaction
and the proximity of the other market participants, the specialist was
in possession of information not readily available to all other market
participants. In his or her position, the specialist had information
directly from the Crowd and the Display Book. Additionally, the
specialist was able to glean incidental information based on his or her
observation of the communication between other market participants.
    Currently, the Hybrid Market provides Floor brokers with electronic
trading tools that have resulted in less personal and verbal
interaction between Floor brokers and specialists.\15\ A Floor broker
is now able to electronically represent his or her customer's interest
through the use of e-quotes and d-quotes.

Moreover, the electronic representation need not take place directly in
front of the post and panel where the security is traded as the
Exchange definition of Crowd has expanded the physical area encompassed
in a Crowd. Today, a Crowd is one of three trading zones which is one
of the three trading rooms operating as part of the NYSE Floor. The
verbal information the specialist was once able to obtain from Floor
broker's expressed interest is greatly reduced. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the observations of Crowd to Crowd transactions offer
little if any information to the specialists. A specialist at a trading
post is unable to know with any degree of certainty the security being
traded by Floor brokers electronically bidding and offering in front of
him or her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Currently, approximately 90% of the transactions executed
on the Exchange are done through electronic executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the reduced ability of a specialist to
glean market information because a specialist's intervention is no
longer required to receive an execution, the specialist's inability to
see stop orders and the dramatic increase in transparency with respect
to the Display Book through, among other things, Exchange initiatives
like Exchange OPENBOOK\TM\ make it clear that the specialist no longer
possesses an information advantage over other market participants. In
fact, it may be argued that the specialist has less information than
some market participants with the increased internalization of orders.
Often prior, to orders being sent to an exchange for execution, the
broker-dealer will ``shop'' the order. In some instances, the broker-
dealer will execute all or part the customer order against its
principal account with any residual being sent to an exchange for
execution. Internalization of order flow limits price discovery and
does not result in transparency. As such, the specialist can be said,
in certain instances, to be at an informational disadvantage to other
market participants.
    The Exchange states that in approving the Stabilization Proposal,
the Commission agreed with the Exchange that trade-by-trade negative
compliance obligations previously embodied in the so-called Saperstein
Interpretation\16\ established seventy years ago no longer address the
realities of the modern market. The Commission's approval order stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 1117, 1937 SEC LEXIS
357 (March 30, 1937).

    The Commission believes that eliminating the trade-by-trade
standard with respect to the negative obligation should enhance the
specialists' ability to fulfill its obligation to maintain a fair
and orderly market. The Commission believes that increased
automation and competition--both within the Hybrid Market and in the
markets generally--are significant factors, among others, that
affect the ability of specialists to make trade-by-trade analysis
regarding their negative obligations. The Commission finds that
permitting specialists to consider the reasonable necessity of their
transactions under negative obligations without a transaction-by-
transaction test, is appropriate and consistent with the Act. The
Commission emphasizes that it is not eliminating the negative
obligation (footnote omitted). Therefore, specialists must continue
to assess their need to trade and limit their proprietary trades to
those reasonably necessary to allow the specialists to maintain a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fair and orderly market.\17\

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54860, supra note
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The re-interpretation of the Saperstein letter thus moved away from
defining stabilization in terms of the last sale to focus on market
conditions, the type of trade in question and the specialists' existing
position.
    The Exchange's proposal to allow specialists to effect Conditional
Transactions in all securities is a request to further address the
realities of the current market. The Exchange states that it does not
in any way reduce the obligations imposed on them pursuant to NYSE Rule
104 to re-enter a transaction on the opposite side of the market and
their negative obligation. The Exchange believes that these critically
distinguishing obligations imposed on NYSE specialists, coupled with
the empirical evidence that, when given the opportunity to effect
Conditional Transactions in less liquid securities there is no
discernable diminishment of market quality, justifies the extension of
the specialist ability to effect Conditional Transactions in all
securities.
    For the reasons stated above, the Exchange believes that extending
the ability of the specialist to effect Conditional Transactions to all
securities will allow specialists to more effectively meet their
affirmative and negative obligations by giving them the tools to better
manage the inventory of the dealer account.
    (6) Exchange Continued Data Provision to the Commission.
    The Exchange represents that it will continue to provide the
Division of Market Regulation and the Office of Economic Analysis with
statistics related to market quality, specialist trading activity and
sample statistics. The sample statistics include the daily Consolidated
Tape volume in shares, daily number of trades, daily high-low
volatility in basis points, and daily close price in dollars.
    The Exchange will also calculate the specialist profit on round-
trip Hit Bid and Take Offer (``HB/TO'') executions. This will be
accomplished by measuring the specialist profit on HB/TO activity by
taking the round-trip trading profits for all HB/TO trades where the
specialist executes an offsetting trade within 30 seconds. In cases
where the volume of the offsetting execution is less than the size of
the HB/TO execution, the calculation will only include profits realized
within the 30-second window.
    The Exchange will further calculate the quote-based specialist re-
entry ratio. Each re-entry price level will be categorized and reported
separately. For example, if the specialist buys from the offer at
$50.00 and then re-enters at $50.01, then this is categorized as a one
cent re-entry. Similarly, if the specialist buys from the offer at
$50.00 and then re-enters at $50.02, then this is categorized as a two
cent re-entry. The categories will be in cent intervals at 0, 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 or more cents. The time window for these calculations will
also be in 30 seconds.
    In addition, the Exchange will provide the Commission with data
related to the average realized spread on specialist HB/TO executions.
These calculations will be done using the same formula as Rule 605 of
Regulation NMS under the Act.\18\ Specifically, the average realized
spread should be a share-weighted average of realized spreads. For
specialist buys, it is double the amount of difference between the
execution price and the midpoint of the consolidated best bid and offer
five minutes after the time of HB/TO execution. For specialist sells,
it is double the amount of difference between the midpoint of the
consolidated best bid and offer five minutes after the time of HB/TO
execution and the execution price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 242.605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the aforementioned information will be provided to the
Commission on a monthly basis. The Exchange represents that it will
also maintain average measures for each stock-day during a particular
month in order to provide such information to the Commission upon
request.
    (7) Surveillance.
    As noted in the NYSE's original Stabilization Rule filing, NYSE
Regulation (``NYSER'') believes that it has appropriate surveillance
procedures in place to surveil for compliance with the negative
obligations of specialists. NYSER monitors, using a pattern and

practice and/or outlier approach, specialist activity that appears to
cause or exacerbate excessive price movement in the market (since such
transactions would appear to be in violation of a specialist's negative
obligation). In this connection, NYSER surveils for specialist
compliance with the PPP re-entry requirements and, based on its
preliminary reviews of surveillance data, has not identified
significant compliance issues to date. The Division of Market
Surveillance of NYSER also monitors specialist trading to cushion such
price movements.
    (8) Conclusion.
    The Exchange seeks to be able to modify and change its business
model in order to continue to improve market quality. If the Exchange
is to do this then it must be allowed to provide the specialists that
operate on the Exchange with the flexibility to compete. The Exchange
believes that this flexibility can be achieved by extending the
specialists ability to effect Conditional Transactions in all
securities.
    The Exchange believes that its current stabilization rules do not
afford specialists trading on the NYSE the necessary flexibility to
manage the dealer account inventory. The Exchange believes that these
rules are antiquated and inconsistent with the electronic trading
environment that has virtually eliminated the specialists' agency role
and information advantage. The Exchange believes that the proposed
amendments regarding specialists' ability to effect Conditional
Transactions will allow specialists on the Exchange to efficiently and
systematically trade and quote in their securities and thus be in a
position to fluidly manage their risk. Providing the specialists with
the required flexibility to compete will add value to the Exchange
market by encouraging them to continue to commit capital, thus
benefiting the marketplace by increasing liquidity at prices outside
the best bid and offer, bridging temporary gaps in supply and demand,
and dampening volatility.
    Given all the above, the NYSE believes that allowing specialists to
effect Conditional Transactions in all securities on pilot basis until
March 31, 2008 is appropriate at this time.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this
proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \19\ of
the Act that an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, 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. The
proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of
Section 11A(a)(1) \20\ under the Act in that it seeks to assure
economically efficient execution of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange states that the proposed rule change was developed in
response to concerns expressed by certain member organizations. During
the drafting of the rule filing and proposed rule, those member
organizations reviewed an initial draft and provided the Exchange with
written comments relating to specialists' obligations and actions
during periods of instability. The Exchange states that it has
incorporated these comments into the final rule proposal, but the
Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the
final proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 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 NYSE consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2007-83 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-83. 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 Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. 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-2007-83 and should be
submitted on or before October 16, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18828 Filed 9-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P