accepted by the Office of Disciplinary Affairs, Hearing Panel, or
Extended Hearing Panel, as applicable, because all parties are in
agreement with respect to the resolution of the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Because the Exchange does not have sanction guidelines, the
Office of Disciplinary Affairs, Hearing Panel, or Extended Hearing
Panel, as applicable, would consider Exchange precedent or such
other precedent as it deemed appropriate in determining whether to
accept the settlement offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 9270(i) would address disciplinary proceedings
with multiple Respondents and permit settlement offers to be accepted
or rejected as to any one or all of such Respondents. The text of the
proposed rule is identical to FINRA's counterpart rule. Current NYSE
Rule 476(c) does not have a similar provision.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 9270(j) would provide that a Respondent may not
be prejudiced by a rejected offer of settlement nor may it be
introduced into evidence. The text of the proposed rule is
substantially the same as FINRA Rule 9270(j), except that it references
the Office of Disciplinary Affairs and does not include references to
the NAC and Review Subcommittee, which the Exchange does not propose to
utilize. The current NYSE rules do not have a similar provision.

Proposed NYSE Rule 9280
    Proposed NYSE Rule 9280 would set forth sanctions for contemptuous
conduct by a Party or attorney or other representative, which may
include exclusion from a hearing or conference, and sets forth a
process for reviewing such exclusions. The text of the proposed rule is
substantially the same as that in FINRA's counterpart rule, except that
rather than having the NAC review exclusions, the Exchange proposes to
have the Chief Hearing Officer review exclusions. The Exchange does not
believe that it is necessary for the Exchange Board of Directors to
conduct such reviews, and they do not do so under the Exchange's
current rules. The Exchange believes that Respondents and their
attorneys and representatives will have adequate procedural protections
with a review by the Chief Hearing Officer. Current NYSE Rule 476 does
not have similar procedures for contemptuous conduct generally, but
NYSE Rule 476(h) does allow for a fine or sanction for improper conduct
before a Hearing Board.
Proposed NYSE Rule 9290
    The Exchange proposes to adopt the text of FINRA Rule 9290 for
expedited disciplinary proceedings. Under proposed NYSE Rule 9290, for
any disciplinary proceeding, the subject matter of which also is
subject to a temporary cease and desist proceeding initiated pursuant
to proposed NYSE Rule 9810 or a temporary cease and desist order,
hearings would be required to be held and decisions rendered at the
earliest possible time. The text of the proposed rule is identical to
FINRA Rule 9290. The Exchange currently does not have a similar rule.
Proposed NYSE Rules 9300 Through 9310
    The Exchange is not proposing to adopt FINRA's appellate and call
for review processes as set forth in the FINRA Rule 9300 Series.
Rather, the text of current NYSE Rule 476(f) and (l) as described above
would be moved to proposed NYSE Rule 9310, with certain technical and
substantive changes that are described below.
    Under proposed NYSE Rule 9310(a)(1), any Party, any Director, and
any member of the NYSER Committee for Review could require a review by
the Exchange Board of Directors of any determination or penalty, or
both, imposed by a Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel under the
proposed NYSE Rule 9200 Series, except that neither Party could request
a review by the Exchange Board of Directors of a decision concerning an
Exchange member that is an affiliate. A request for review would be
made by filing with the Secretary of the Exchange a written request
therefor, which states the basis and reasons for such review, within 25
days after notice of the determination and/or penalty was served upon
the Respondent. The Secretary of the Exchange would give notice of any
such request for review to the Parties.
    The proposed rule differs from the current rule in one substantive
respect. It would eliminate the authority of an Executive Floor
Governor to require a review of a disciplinary decision. The Exchange
believes that such authority is no longer necessary because the
Exchange has moved away from a Floor-only trading model, and the
Exchange's roster of member organizations includes those without any
Floor presence. Accordingly, the Executive Floor Governors no longer
represent the full community of market participants who may be subject
to disciplinary action. The text also contains certain conforming and
technical changes to align it with terms used in the remainder of the
proposed NYSE Rule 9000 Series.
    Under proposed NYSE Rule 9310(a)(2), the Secretary of the Exchange
would direct the Office of Hearing Officers to complete and transmit a
record of the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with NYSE Rule
9267. Within 21 days after the Secretary of the Exchange gives notice
of a request for review to the Parties, or at such later time as the
Secretary of the Exchange could designate, the Office of Hearing
Officers would assemble and prepare an index to the record, transmit
the record and the index to the Secretary of the Exchange, and serve
copies of the index upon all Parties. The Hearing Officer who
participated in the disciplinary proceeding, or the Chief Hearing
Officer, would certify that the record transmitted to the Secretary of
the Exchange was complete. Current NYSE Rule 476(f) does not contain
such requirements; the text is modeled on FINRA Rule 9321.
    Under proposed NYSE Rule 9310(b), any review by the Exchange Board
of Directors would be based on oral arguments and written briefs and
limited to consideration of the record before the Hearing Panel or
Extended Hearing Panel. Upon review, the Exchange Board of Directors,
by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Exchange Board of
Directors then in office, could sustain any determination or penalty
imposed, or both, may modify or reverse any such determination, and may
increase, decrease or eliminate any such penalty, or impose any penalty
permitted under the Exchange's rules, as it deems appropriate. Unless
the Exchange Board of Directors otherwise specifically directed, the
determination and penalty, if any, of the Exchange Board of Directors
after review would be final and conclusive, subject to the provisions
for review under the Act. The proposed rule is substantially the same
as provided in current NYSE Rule 476(f), other than conforming and
technical changes to align it with terms used in the remainder of the
proposed NYSE Rule 9000 Series.
    Under proposed NYSE Rule 9310(c), notwithstanding the foregoing, if
either Party upon review applied to the Exchange Board of Directors for
leave to adduce additional evidence, and showed to the satisfaction of
the Exchange Board of Directors that the additional evidence was
material and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce
it before the Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel, the Exchange
Board of Directors could remand the case for further proceedings, in
whatever manner and on whatever conditions the Exchange Board of
Directors considered appropriate. The proposed rule is substantially
the same as provided in current NYSE Rule 476(f), other than conforming
and technical changes to align it with terms used in the remainder of
the proposed NYSE Rule 9000 Series.
    Under proposed NYSE Rule 9310(d), notwithstanding any other
provisions of the proposed NYSE Rule 9000 Series, the CEO could not
require a review by the Exchange Board of Directors under this Rule and
would be recused from deliberations and actions of the Exchange Board
of Directors with respect to such matters. The proposed rule is
substantially the same as provided in current NYSE Rule 476(l), other
than conforming and technical changes to align it with terms used in
the remainder of the proposed NYSE Rule 9000 Series.
Proposed NYSE Rules 9500 Through 9527
    The proposed NYSE Rule 9500 Series would relate to all other
proceedings under the Exchange Rules.
    The proposed NYSE Rule 9520 Series would govern eligibility
proceedings for persons subject to statutory disqualifications that are
not FINRA members. The Exchange does not currently have any rules
governing this

subject matter.\40\ The Exchange intends for the scope of the proposed
NYSE Rule 9520 Series to be the same as FINRA Rule 9520 Series, and as
such intends to issue a notice similar to FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-
19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ FINRA has been processing statutory disqualification
applications on behalf of the Exchange since 2007. See supra notes 4
and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 9521 would add certain definitions relating to
eligibility proceedings that are not currently part of the NYSE's
rules, including ``Application,'' ``disqualified member organization,''
``disqualified person,'' and ``sponsoring member organization.''
Proposed NYSE Rule 9522 would govern the initiation of an eligibility
proceeding by the Exchange and the obligation for a member organization
to file an application to initiate an eligibility proceeding if it has
been subject to certain disqualifications. Further, under the proposed
rule, the Department of Member Regulation could approve a written
request for relief from the eligibility requirements under certain
circumstances. Proposed NYSE Rule 9523 would allow the Department of
Member Regulation to recommend a supervisory plan to which the
disqualified member organization, sponsoring member organization, and/
or disqualified person, as the case may be, may consent and by doing
so, waive the right to hearing or appeal if the plan is accepted and
the right to claim bias or prejudgment, or prohibited ex parte
communications. If such a supervisory plan were rejected, proposed NYSE
Rule 9524 would allow a request for review by the applicant to the
Exchange Board of Directors. Proposed NYSE Rule 9527 would provide that
a filing of an application for review would not stay the effectiveness
of final action by the Exchange unless the Commission otherwise
ordered.
    The text of the proposed rule change is similar to that in FINRA's
counterpart rules, except for conforming and technical changes and
except as follows. First, under proposed NYSE Rule 9523, if the
disqualified member organization, sponsoring member organization, and/
or disqualified person executed a letter consenting to a supervisory
plan, it would be submitted to the Exchange's CRO. Under FINRA's rule,
the letter is submitted to FINRA Office of General Counsel, which
submits it to the Chairman of the Statutory Disqualification Committee,
acting on behalf of the NAC; the Chairman may accept or reject the plan
or refer it to the NAC for action. The Exchange does not propose to
utilize the NAC or the Statutory Disqualification Committee Chairman
for this purpose. The Exchange believes that its CRO is independent of
the Department of Member Regulation and as such can provide an
appropriate review. The CRO is performing this same function today when
the CRO reviews statutory disqualification decisions reached by FINRA.
In addition, under FINRA's rule, the waiver of bias or prejudgment is
with respect to the Department of Member Regulation, the FINRA General
Counsel, the NAC and any member thereof, while under proposed NYSE Rule
9523, the waiver would be with respect to the Department of Member
Regulation, the CRO, the Exchange Board of Directors, or any member
thereof to conform to the Exchange's proposed rules.
    Second, under proposed NYSE Rule 9524, if the CRO rejects the plan,
the member organization or applicant may request a review by the
Exchange Board of Directors. This differs from FINRA's process, which
provides for a hearing before the NAC and further consideration by the
FINRA Board of Directors. Because the Exchange does not propose to
utilize the NAC, the Exchange proposes instead that any appeal be heard
by the Exchange Board of Directors. FINRA Rule 9525 also allows for
discretionary review by the FINRA Board and the Exchange does not
propose to adopt a comparable rule.\41\ The Exchange Board of Directors
historically has not exercised such discretion with respect to
statutory disqualification matters and the Exchange believes that the
CRO's role in the process will provide sufficient oversight and
independence. Third, the Exchange does not propose to adopt the text of
FINRA Rule 9526, which provides for expedited proceedings by the FINRA
Board of Governors in certain instances. The Exchange believes that its
proposed rules for review can be carried out in a timely manner and
would sufficiently protect investors. The Exchange historically has not
provided an expedited statutory disqualification review. As such, to
maintain consistency with FINRA's rule numbering, proposed NYSE Rules
9525 and 9526 would be designated ``Reserved.'' Proposed NYSE Rule 9527
contains only a technical change to FINRA's rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Proposed NYSE Rule 9559(q), which provides for calls for
review by the Exchange Board of Directors of proposed decisions by a
Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel rendered under the proposed NYSE
Rule 9550 Series, does not apply to the proposed NYSE Rule 9520
Series because the statutory disqualification proceedings provide
for staff determinations rather than adjudicatory decisions by a
Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed NYSE Rules 9550 Through 9559
    Proposed NYSE Rules 9550 through 9559 would govern expedited
proceedings.
    The Exchange does not believe that it is necessary to adopt the
text of FINRA Rule 9551, which concerns failure to comply with the
advertising and sales literature requirements in NASD Rule 2210. All
NYSE member organizations that circulate advertising or sales
literature are by definition doing business with the public, and
therefore must be members of FINRA and are already subject to FINRA
Rules 2210 and 9551. In addition, under the SEC Rule 17d-2 agreement,
FINRA is allocated responsibility for NYSE Rule 472, NYSE's counterpart
to NASD Rule 2210.\42\ As such, proposed NYSE Rule 9551 would be
designated ``Reserved'' to maintain consistency with FINRA's rule
numbering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Rule 9552 would establish procedures in the event
that a member organization or covered person failed to provide any
information, report, material, data, or testimony requested or required
to be filed under the Exchange's rules, or failed to keep its
membership application or supporting documents current. In the event of
the foregoing, under proposed NYSE Rule 9552, the member organization
or covered person could be suspended if corrective action were not
taken within 21 days after service of notice. A member organization or
covered person served with a notice could request a hearing within the
21-day period. A member organization or covered person subject to a
suspension could file a written request for termination of the
suspension on the ground of full compliance. A member organization or
covered person suspended under the proposed rule change that failed to
request termination of the suspension within three months of issuance
of the original notice of suspension would automatically be expelled or
barred.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Exchange believes that the provision for automatic
expulsion or bar after three months is consistent with Section 6 of
the Act because the respondent would have ample notice and
opportunity to be heard under proposed NYSE Rule 9552, the proposed
rule is substantially the same as FINRA's counterpart rule, and the
Commission has upheld at least one bar under a prior version of
FINRA's rule. See, e.g., Dennis A. Pearson, Jr., Securities Exchange
Act Rel. Nos. 54913 (December 11, 2006) (dismissing application for
review by associated person barred under NASD Rule 9552(h)) and
55597A (April 6, 2007) (denying motion for reconsideration).

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is substantially the same as
that in FINRA's counterpart rule, except for conforming and technical
changes and except that it does not include the text of FINRA Rule
9552(i), which requires a notice to FINRA's membership of final action
under the rule. The Exchange does not propose to include a notice
requirement because it would be duplicative of proposed NYSE Rule 8313.
    There is no provision for such an expedited proceeding under the
NYSE's current rules. Under current NYSE Rule 476(a)(11), a member
organization or covered person is subject to a regular, as opposed to
expedited, disciplinary proceeding for failure to submit books and
records or provide testimony upon request of the Exchange and for
failure to update a Form BD.
    The Exchange does not propose to adopt the text of FINRA Rule 9553,
which concerns failure to pay fees, dues, assessments or other charges.
As described above, the Exchange proposes to adopt the text of FINRA
Rule 8320, which addresses the non-payment of fines and monetary
sanctions and would continue to use NYSE Rule 309 for non-payment of
all other amounts due to the Exchange. Accordingly, proposed NYSE Rule
9553 would be designated ``Reserved'' to maintain consistency with
FINRA's rule numbering.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 9554 would contain similar procedures and
consequences as proposed NYSE Rule 9552 relating to a failure to comply
with an arbitration award or related settlement or an Exchange order of
restitution or Exchange settlement agreement providing for restitution.
Under proposed NYSE Rule 9554, if a member organization or covered
person failed to comply with an arbitration award or a settlement
agreement related to an arbitration or mediation under the Exchange's
rules, or an Exchange order of restitution or Exchange settlement
agreement providing for restitution, Exchange staff could provide
written notice to such covered person or member organization stating
that the failure to comply within 21 days of service of the notice will
result in a suspension or cancellation of membership or a suspension
from associating with any member organization. The text of the proposed
rule change is substantially the same as that in FINRA's counterpart
rule, except for technical and conforming changes, and except that it
does not include the text of FINRA Rule 9554(h), which requires a
notice to FINRA's membership of final action under the Rule, because it
would be duplicative of proposed NYSE Rule 8313. Under current NYSE
Rule 600A(c), the failure to honor an arbitration award subjects a
member organization, member, or registered person to a regular
disciplinary proceeding under NYSE Rule 476.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 9555 would govern the failure to meet the
eligibility or qualification standards or prerequisites for access to
services offered by the Exchange. Under proposed NYSE Rule 9555, if a
member organization or covered person did not meet the eligibility or
qualification standards set forth in the Exchange's rules, Exchange
staff could provide written notice to such covered person or member
organization stating that the failure to become eligible or qualified
will result in a suspension or cancellation of membership or a
suspension or bar from associating with any member organization.
Similarly, if a member organization or covered person did not meet the
prerequisites for access to services offered by the Exchange or a
member organization thereof or could not be permitted to continue to
have access to services offered by the Exchange or a member
organization thereof with safety to investors, creditors, members, or
the Exchange, Exchange staff could provide written notice to such
member organization or covered person limiting or prohibiting access to
services offered by the Exchange or a member organization thereof. The
limitation, prohibition, suspension, cancellation, or bar referenced in
the notice would become effective 14 days after service of the notice
unless the member organization or covered person requested a hearing
during that time, except that the effective date for a notice of a
limitation or prohibition on access to services would be upon service
of the notice. The text of the proposed rule change is substantially
the same as that in FINRA's counterpart rule, except for conforming and
technical changes and except that it does not include the text of FINRA
Rule 9555(h), which requires a notice of final action under the Rule,
because it would be duplicative of proposed NYSE Rule 8313.
    As described above, under Rule 475(a), the Exchange currently may
prohibit or limit access to services offered by the Exchange or any
member or member organization thereof if the Exchange has provided 15
days' prior written notice of, and an opportunity to be heard upon, the
specific grounds for such prohibition or limitation, and provides a
written decision.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 9556 would provide procedures and consequences
for a failure to comply with temporary and permanent cease and desist
orders, which would be authorized by proposed NYSE Rule 9810. The text
of proposed NYSE Rule 9556 is the same as FINRA Rule 9556, except in
the following respects. First, the text contains conforming and
technical changes. Second, under FINRA's rule, FINRA's CEO authorizes
proceedings under FINRA Rule 9556; under the Exchange's proposed rule,
the Exchange's CRO would have such authority. Third, FINRA's rule
permits service of process by facsimile; the Exchange does not believe
that this alternative service method is necessary and the service
methods permitted under proposed NYSE Rule 9134 (which are identical to
FINRA Rule 9134) would be sufficient. Finally, the Exchange does not
propose to include a notice to its membership of decisions under the
rule, as FINRA does, because it would be duplicative of proposed NYSE
Rule 8313. The Exchange currently does not issue temporary or permanent
cease and desist orders and, as such, there is no counterpart in the
Exchange's current rules.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 9557 would allow the Exchange to issue a notice
directing a member organization to comply with the provisions of NYSE
Rule 4110 (Capital Compliance), 4120 (Regulatory Notification and
Business Curtailment), or 4130 (Regulation of Activities of Section 15C
Member Organizations Experiencing Financial and/or Operational
Difficulties) or otherwise directing it to restrict its business
activities. The notice would be immediately effective, except that a
timely request for a hearing would stay the effective date for 10
business days (unless the Exchange's CRO determined otherwise) or until
an order was issued by the Office of Hearing Officers, whichever was
earlier. The notice could be withdrawn upon a showing that all the
requirements were met.
    The text of the proposed rule change is substantially the same as
that in FINRA Rule 9557, except in the following respects. First, the
text contains conforming and technical changes. Second, under FINRA's
rule, FINRA's CEO exercises authority with respect to stays under the
rule; under the Exchange's proposed rule, the Exchange's CRO would have
such authority. Third, FINRA's rule permits service of process by
facsimile; the Exchange does not believe that this alternative service
method is necessary

for the reasons stated above. Finally, the Exchange does not propose to
include a notice to its membership of decisions under the rule, as
FINRA does, because it would be duplicative of proposed NYSE Rule 8313.
    Currently, if a member organization fails to comply with NYSE Rule
4110, 4120, or 4130 (which are substantially the same as FINRA Rules
4110, 4120, and 4130), the Exchange issues a notice, for FINRA members,
pursuant to FINRA Rule 9557, and for member organizations that are not
FINRA members, pursuant to NYSE Rule 475(b), which authorizes summary
suspensions, as described above.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 9558 would allow the Exchange's CRO to provide
written authorization to the Exchange staff to issue a written notice
for a summary proceeding for an action authorized by Section 6(d)(3) of
the Act. Such notice would be immediately effective. The text of the
proposed rule change is substantially the same as that in FINRA Rule
9558, except as follows. First, the text contains conforming and
technical changes. Second, under FINRA's rule, FINRA's CEO authorizes
such proceedings. Third, FINRA's rule permits service of process by
facsimile; the Exchange does not believe that this alternative service
method is necessary for the reasons stated above. Finally, the Exchange
does not propose to include a notice to its membership of decisions
under the rule, as FINRA does, because it would be duplicative of
proposed NYSE Rule 8313. Such summary proceedings are currently
authorized under NYSE Rule 475(b), under which the Exchange has
authority to summarily suspend a member organization that is expelled
or suspended by another SRO or a covered person that is barred or
suspended by an SRO or limit or prohibit any person with respect to
access to Exchange services in certain circumstances; while this rule
also provides for notice and an opportunity for a hearing, it does not
set forth a specific time limit for requesting a hearing.
    Proposed NYSE Rule 9559 would set forth uniform hearing procedures
for all expedited proceedings under the proposed NYSE Rule 9550 Series.
Proposed NYSE Rule 9559 differs from FINRA Rule 9559 as follows. First,
any call for review would be conducted by the Exchange's Board of
Directors rather than FINRA's NAC. Second, the Exchange would not
utilize current or former members of the FINRA Financial Responsibility
Committee for proceedings initiated under proposed NYSE Rule 9557, as
FINRA does under its counterpart rule. The Exchange would use the same
pool of Hearing Panelists from the Hearing Board as it uses for other
proceedings. Third, any instance in FINRA's rule that authorized
FINRA's CEO to act would instead authorize the Exchange's CRO to act.
Fourth, the Exchange does not propose to adopt the text of FINRA Rule
9559(r), which provides for the publication of decisions under the
Rule, because it would be duplicative of proposed NYSE Rule 8313.
Fifth, the Exchange does not propose to adopt the text of FINRA Rule
9559(q)(1) that sets forth 14-day and 21-day call for review periods
because a call for review period would be described in proposed NYSE
Rule 9310. Proposed NYSE Rule 9559(q)(1) will instead state that calls
for review would be conducted in accordance with proposed NYSE Rule
9310, which, consistent with the time period in current NYSE Rule
476(f), would provide for a 25-day call for review period. Finally, the
proposed text contains conforming and technical changes. Currently, the
Exchange does not have a rule comparable to FINRA Rule 9559.
Proposed NYSE Rule 9600 Series
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new NYSE Rule 9600 Series, which
would set forth procedures by which a member organization could seek
exemptive relief from current NYSE Rules 4311(carrying agreements) and
4360 (fidelity bonds) and proposed NYSE Rule 8211 (submission of
electronic blue sheet data). Under proposed NYSE Rule 9610, a member
organization seeking exemptive relief would be required to file a
written application with the appropriate department or staff of the
Exchange and provide a copy of the application to the CRO. Under
proposed NYSE Rule 9620, after considering the application, the
Exchange staff would be required to issue a written decision setting
forth its findings and conclusions. The decision would be served on the
Applicant pursuant to proposed NYSE Rules 9132 and 9134. Under proposed
NYSE Rule 9630, an Applicant that wished to appeal the decision would
be required to file a written notice of appeal with the Exchange's CRO
within 15 calendar days after service of the decision. Under proposed
NYSE Rule 9630(e), the CRO would affirm, modify, or reverse the
decision issued under proposed NYSE Rule 9620 and issue a written
decision setting forth his or her findings and conclusions and serve
the decision on the Applicant. The decision would be served pursuant to
proposed NYSE Rules 9132 and 9134, would be effective upon service, and
would constitute final action of the Exchange.
    The rule text would be modeled on FINRA's Rule 9600 Series; the
Exchange's proposed rules primarily differ from FINRA's in that they
contain technical and conforming changes and that the Exchange's CRO,
rather than FINRA's Office of General Counsel, would receive the
request and any notice of appeal, and the CRO, rather than FINRA's NAC,
would carry out the proposed appellate process.\44\ Currently, NYSE
Rule 410A(d) permits a member organization to seek an exception from
the data format elements for submitting electronic blue sheets for
transactions effected on the Exchange, but the Rule does not set forth
specific procedures for doing so. Current NYSE Rule 4360, which
concerns fidelity bonds, references FINRA's exemptive process; this
rule would be amended to delete the reference to the FINRA Rule 9600
Series as the Exchange would now have its own such provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Currently, the FINRA Rule 9600 Series also permits FINRA
members to seek exemptive relief from other rules--NASD Rules 1021,
1050, 1070, 2210, 2340, 3010(b)(2), or 3150, or FINRA Rules 2114,
2310, 2359, 2360, 4210, 4320, 5110, 5121, 5122, 5130, 6183, 6625,
6731, 7470, 8213, 11870, or 11900, or Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board Rule G-37. If NYSE adopts similar rules in the
future as part of the rules harmonization project, it will consider
permitting member organizations to seek exemptive relief through the
NYSE Rule 9600 Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed NYSE Rule 9700 Series
    FINRA's Rule 9700 Series provides redress for persons aggrieved by
the operations of any automated quotation, execution, or communication
system owned or operated by FINRA. As this would be inapplicable to the
Exchange, the Exchange proposes to designate the proposed NYSE Rule
9700 Series as reserved to maintain consistency with FINRA's rule
numbering conventions. The Exchange notes that under current NYSE Rule
18, if a member organization suffers a loss related to an Exchange
system failure, it can submit a claim pursuant to the procedures of
that rule.
Proposed NYSE Rule 9800 Series
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new NYSE Rule 9800 Series to set
forth procedures for issuing temporary cease and desist orders. Under
proposed NYSE Rule 9810, with the prior written authorization of the
Exchange's CRO or such other senior officers as the CRO may designate,
FINRA's Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market
Regulation could initiate a temporary cease and desist proceeding with
respect to alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Act, SEC Rules
10b-

5 and 15g-1 through 15g-9, NYSE Rule 2010 (if the alleged violation is
unauthorized trading, or misuse or conversion of customer assets, or is
based on violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933) or
NYSE Rule 2020. Proposed NYSE Rule 9820 would govern the appointment of
a Hearing Officer and Panelists.
    Under proposed NYSE Rule 9830, the hearing would be held not later
than 15 days after service of the notice and filing initiating the
temporary cease and desist proceeding, unless otherwise extended by the
Hearing Officer with the consent of the Parties for good cause shown.
Proposed NYSE Rule 9830 would govern how the hearing was conducted.
    Under proposed NYSE Rule 9840, the Hearing Panel would be
authorized to issue a written decision stating whether a temporary
cease and desist order would be imposed. The Hearing Panel would be
required to issue the decision not later than 10 days after receipt of
the hearing transcript, unless otherwise extended by the Hearing
Officer with the consent of the Parties for good cause shown. Under
proposed NYSE Rule 9850, at any time after the Office of Hearing
Officers served the Respondent with a temporary cease and desist order,
a Party could apply to the Hearing Panel to have the order modified,
set aside, limited, or suspended. The Hearing Panel generally would be
required to respond to the request in writing within 10 days after
receipt of the request. Proposed NYSE Rule 9860 would authorize the
initiation of a suspension or cancellation of a Respondent's
association or membership under proposed NYSE Rule 9556 if the
Respondent violated a temporary cease and desist order.
    Finally, proposed NYSE Rule 9870 would provide that temporary cease
and desist orders issued under the proposed NYSE Rule 9800 Series would
constitute final and immediately effective disciplinary sanctions
imposed by the Exchange, and that the right to have any action under
this rule series reviewed by the Commission would be governed by
Section 19 of the Act. The filing of an application for review would
not stay the effectiveness of the temporary cease and desist order,
unless the Commission otherwise ordered.
    The proposed rule text would be substantially the same as that in
FINRA's Rule 9800 Series, except for conforming and technical
amendments and except that the Exchange's CRO, rather than FINRA's CEO,
would authorize the initiation of temporary cease and desist
proceedings and the initiation of suspension or cancellation
proceedings for a violation of a temporary cease and desist order. As
noted above, the Exchange currently does not have procedures comparable
to FINRA's Rule 9800 Series.
Technical and Conforming Changes
    The Exchange proposes technical and conforming changes to NYSE
Rules 2A, 20, 36, 103B, 309, 345A, 600A, 619, 772, 1301, 1301A, 1301B,
4110, 4120, 4130, and 4360 and NYSE Rule Interpretation 345A.
    NYSE Rule 2A would be amended to specify that the list of
disciplinary sanctions currently set forth in that Rule would apply to
proceedings under current NYSE Rules 475 and 476, and the list of
disciplinary sanctions set forth in proposed NYSE Rule 8310(a) would
apply to proceedings initiated under the proposed NYSE Rule 9000
Series.
    Current NYSE Rule 20(b) requires that NYSE Regulation establish a
Regulatory Advisory Committee, which includes persons associated with
member organizations and representatives of both those member
organizations doing business on the Floor of the Exchange and those who
do not do business on the Floor. The Regulatory Advisory Committee acts
in an advisory capacity regarding disciplinary matters and regulatory
rules other than trading rules. The Exchange proposes to delete the
reference to the Regulatory Advisory Committee acting in an advisory
capacity regarding disciplinary matters because it would not perform
such a function under the proposed rule change--only the Adjudicators
specified under the proposed rule change would have authority over
disciplinary proceedings. The Regulatory Advisory Committee has not
performed this function since FINRA assumed responsibility for the
Exchange's disciplinary proceedings; as such, the Exchange proposes to
remove this out-of-date reference in NYSE Rule 20(b).
    NYSE Rule 36 would be amended to include a reference to proposed
NYSE Rule 9558, which relates to summary proceedings for actions
authorized by Section 6(d)(3) of the Act.
    NYSE Rule 103B would be amended to include references to the
proposed NYSE Rule 8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series, which would
contain proceedings for which a Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') unit
could lose its registration in a specialty stock.
    As noted above, NYSE Rule 309 would be amended to replace the term
``allied member'' with ``principal executive'' \45\ and update a cross-
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 345A would be amended to delete a reference to NYSE Rule
346(f) because NYSE Rule 346 was recently deleted in its entirety.
    NYSE Rule 600A would be amended to correct typographical errors in
the rule title, include references to the disciplinary proceedings of
the proposed NYSE Rule 8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series for failure to
honor an arbitration award, and change references from ``NASD DR'' to
``FINRA.''
    NYSE Rule 619 would be amended to include a reference to proposed
NYSE Rule 8210, which would govern the authority of the Exchange to
request information and testimony.
    NYSE Rule 772 would be amended to include references to the
disciplinary proceedings of the proposed NYSE Rule 8000 Series and Rule
9000 Series, which would govern ways in which a member organization may
be suspended.
    NYSE Rules 1301, 1301A, and 1301B would be amended to include a
reference to the proposed NYSE Rule 8000 Series, which would govern the
production of books and records, and replace the term ``allied member''
with ``principal executive.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rules 4110, 4120, and 4130 would be amended to revise a cross-
reference to FINRA Rule 9557 as the Exchange proposes to adopt NYSE
Rule 9557.
    NYSE Rule 4360 would be amended to provide that any request for an
exemption would be processed under the proposed NYSE Rule 9600 Series
rather than FINRA rules.
    NYSE Rule Interpretation 345A would be amended to include a
reference to the proposed Rule 9000 Series, which would govern the time
periods allowed to appeal or request a review.

Certain Current Exchange Rules Not Included in Proposed Rule Text

    Certain aspects of current Exchange rules described above would not
be included in the proposed NYSE Rule 8000-9000 Series, either because
the Exchange does not believe they are necessary or the authority is
implicit in the proposed rule change.
    First, under current NYSE Rule 475(f), any person suspended under
current Rule 475 may, at any time, be reinstated by the Exchange Board
of Directors. The Exchange does not believe that it would continue to
be appropriate for the Exchange Board of Directors to have the
authority to overturn a suspension imposed by another Adjudicator in
light of the detailed procedural rules, comprehensive protections to
Respondents, and continued availability

of the Exchange's appeals process under the proposed rule change.
    Second, under current NYSE Rules 475(g) and 476(k), any person
suspended under such rules may be disciplined in accordance with the
Exchange's rules for any offense committed before or after the
suspension. The Exchange believes that such authority is implicit in
proposed NYSE Rule 9211 and need not be express in the proposed rule
change.
    Under current NYSE Rules 475(h) and 476(j) and (k), a suspended
person is deprived during the term of the suspension of all rights and
privileges of membership, and any suspension of a member or allied
member creates a vacancy in any office or position held by such member
or allied member. The Exchange believes that this is implicit in the
concept of a suspension and need not be express in the proposed rule
change.
    Under current NYSE Rule 476(i), a member or allied member of the
Exchange who is associated with a member organization is liable to the
same discipline and penalties for any act or omission of such member
organization as for the member or allied member's own personal act or
omission. The Hearing Panel that considers the charges may relieve him
from the penalty therefor or may adjust the penalty on such terms and
conditions as the Hearing Panel or the Exchange Board of Directors
deems fair and equitable. The Exchange believes that this authority is
contained in proposed rule change because complaints may be brought
against both member organizations and covered persons and are subject
to review by Hearing Panel and the Exchange Board of Directors.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\47\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\48\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. In addition, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(7) of
the Act,\49\ in particular, in that it provides fair procedures for the
disciplining of members and persons associated with members, the denial
of membership to any person seeking membership therein, the barring of
any person from becoming associated with a member thereof, and the
prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to
access to services offered by the Exchange or a member thereof. In
addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,\50\ in particular, in
that it supports the fair representation of members \51\ in the
administration of the Exchange's affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \51\ The Exchange's equivalent to the term ``member'' in this
context is ``member organization.'' See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes will provide greater harmonization between
Exchange and FINRA rules of similar purpose, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for dual members.
As previously noted, in many instances the proposed rule text is
identical to FINRA's current rule text,\52\ which already has been
approved by the Commission, and in many other cases the differences
between current FINRA rules and the proposed rules would be strictly
technical in nature.\53\ As such, the proposed rule change will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities and will remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See supra note 9.
    \53\ See supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain key aspects of the Exchange's disciplinary proceedings
would be retained. In particular, the Exchange would retain its current
selection process for Hearing Panelists. The Exchange believes that it
is necessary to do so in order to provide a fair procedure to its
member organizations and covered persons, some of which are not subject
to FINRA's jurisdiction. As such, the Exchange's Hearing Panelists
cannot be drawn solely from a pool of FINRA members and associated
persons but rather must include NYSE-only member organizations and
persons with experience in NYSE Floor matters in order for the
Exchange's members to have a fair representation in its affairs. For
the same reasons, the Exchange also believes that its current Board of
Directors remains the appropriate body for appeals or reviews of
initial disciplinary decisions because its Board of Directors includes
fair representation candidates from its membership. A FINRA-only
appellate body would not provide such representation. Similarly, the
Exchange believes that its CRO is better suited to resolving certain
procedural matters and rendering certain decisions under the proposed
rule change because the Exchange's CRO will have greater familiarity
with the Exchange's rules and membership than would FINRA's General
Counsel.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed processes for
settling disciplinary matters both before and after the issuance of a
complaint are fair and reasonable. While such proposed rules differ
both from certain aspects of the Exchange's current Stipulation and
Consent process and FINRA's current settlement processes, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change nonetheless provides adequate
procedural protections to all Parties and promotes efficiency. In
particular, the Exchange believes that it would be fair and efficient
to have the Office of Disciplinary Affairs act as a check and balance
against the agreements reached by the Parties for resolving
disciplinary matters.
    Finally, the Exchange would retain its list of minor rule
violations, which have already been approved by the Commission,\54\
with certain technical and conforming amendments, while adopting
FINRA's minor rule violation fine levels and process for imposing them,
which also have already been approved by the Commission.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The most recent amendments to the Exchange's minor rule
violation plan were approved in Securities Exchange Act Release No.
66758 (April 6, 2012) 77 FR 22032 (April 12, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-
05).
    \55\ See FINRA Rule 9216(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The [sic] Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but
rather is designed to provide greater harmonization between Exchange
and FINRA rules of similar purpose for investigations and disciplinary
matters, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory
compliance for dual members and facilitating FINRA's performance of its
regulatory functions under the RSA.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2013-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2013-02, and should be submitted on or before
February 14, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01375 Filed 1-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21851-21852]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-19]

========================================================================
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 TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0470; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-026-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10 B Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    An internal review evidenced that the flight controls tie rod
bolts currently installed on the airplane are not in accordance with
the design data. Indeed the bolt shank length has been determined
too short and the material properties of the spacers have been found
inadequate according to the prescribed torque value.
    Therefore, bolts' threads could be subject to excessive wear,
which might induce play in flight controls and consequently, induce
vibrations in the control surfaces and reduce the airplane handling.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2008.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0470;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-026-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2008-0060, dated April 1, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    An internal review evidenced that the flight controls tie rod
bolts currently installed on the airplane are not in accordance with
the design data. Indeed the bolt shank length has been determined
too short and the material properties of the spacers have been found
inadequate according to the prescribed torque value.
    Therefore, bolts' threads could be subject to excessive wear,
which might induce play in flight controls and consequently, induce
vibrations in the control surfaces and reduce the airplane handling.
    To prevent this condition, the present Airworthiness Directive
(AD) mandates replacement of the tie rod bolts and spacers.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    APEX Aircraft has issued Service Bulletin No. 040206, dated
September 21, 2007. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 31 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $100 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $10,540, or $340 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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

APEX Aircraft: Docket No. FAA-2008-0470; Directorate Identifier
2008-CE-026-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 23, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model CAP 10 B airplanes, serial numbers
(SN) 300 through 317 that have incorporated APEX change 000302
(carbon fibre wing spars), certificated in any category.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    An internal review evidenced that the flight controls tie rod
bolts currently installed on the airplane are not in accordance with
the design data. Indeed the bolt shank length has been determined
too short and the material properties of the spacers have been found
inadequate according to the prescribed torque value.
    Therefore, bolts' threads could be subject to excessive wear,
which might induce play in flight controls and consequently, induce
vibrations in the control surfaces and reduce the airplane handling.
    To prevent this condition, the present Airworthiness Directive
(AD) mandates replacement of the tie rod bolts and spacers.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD, remove tie rod bolts part number (P/N) <IP_ADDRESS> and
spacers P/N <IP_ADDRESS> and replace them with tie rod bolts P/N
<IP_ADDRESS>8 and spacers P/N <IP_ADDRESS>, following APEX Aircraft
Service Bulletin No. 040206, dated September 21, 2007.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any tie
rod bolt P/N <IP_ADDRESS> or spacer P/N <IP_ADDRESS>.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2008-0060, dated April 1, 2008; and APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin
No. 040206, dated September 21, 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 17, 2008.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-8752 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52018-52019]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21175]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR12-25-000]

Oxy Midstream Strategic Development, LLC, Magellan Midstream
Partners, L.P.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on August 13, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.207(a)(2)(2012), Oxy Midstream Strategic Development, LLC and
Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P., on behalf of BridgeTex Pipeline
Company, LLC, filed a petition seeking a declaratory order approving
the

proposed tariff and rate structure for a new interstate pipeline
project that will transport crude oil from the Permian Basin, which is
sourced in West Texas and New Mexico, to the Houston, Texas Gulf Coast
area.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, September 4, 2012.

    Dated: August 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21175 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 64096-64097]
[DOCID:fr14no07-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56762; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-129]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the
CBSX Floor Post

November 7, 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 November 2, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been 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 proposes to change CBOE Stock Exchange (``CBSX'')
rules relating to the CBSX Floor Post. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at CBOE's principal office, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.cboe.org/legal.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    CBSX is the Exchange's stock trading facility. It is an all-
electronic trading platform. In connection with the establishment of
CBSX, the Exchange created a space on the CBOE trading floor (apart
from the equity option trading posts) to allow for in-person price
discovery. All CBSX Designated Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs'')
currently are required to maintain personnel at this post (the ``Floor
Post'') to respond to price discovery inquiries from brokers. Any
resulting orders/trades are entered and processed electronically. There
is no open-outcry trading on CBSX.
    The proposed rule change has two purposes. First, the filing
proposes to modify Rule 51.12 to state that CBSX ``may'' maintain a
Floor Post. Currently, Rule 51.12 contemplates that CBSX ``will''
maintain a Floor Post. Although the Exchange intends to continue to
maintain the Floor Post, this change will provide the flexibility to
remove the Floor Post if at a later time the Exchange deems such action
prudent.
    The second change is to eliminate the requirement that CBSX DPMs
maintain personnel at the Floor Post. As proposed, it would be optional
for CBSX DPM firms to staff the Floor Post. Certain CBSX DPMs have
requested this change, noting that it would allow them to more
efficiently allocate resources. The Exchange believes that a change to
this requirement would have absolutely no adverse impact to trading on
CBSX.
2. Statutory Basis
    CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act \4\ in particular, in that it is 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 to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    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 Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-129 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-CBOE-2007-129. 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-CBOE-2007-129 and should be
submitted on or before December 5, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-22166 Filed 11-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 208 (Monday, November 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60165]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0674; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment Class D and Class E Airspace; Ardmore, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects the final rule published in the Federal
Register on October 26, 2021, amending the Class D and Class E airspace
at Ardmore, OK. A duplicate line of text was included in the Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface airspace
legal description.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 27, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO
7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (86 FR
59015; October 26, 2021) for FR Doc. 2021-23008 amending the Class D
and Class E airspace at Ardmore, OK. Subsequent to publication, the FAA
identified that a duplicate line of text was included in the Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface airspace
legal description. This action corrects that error.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F
dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be subsequently
published in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Amendment
Class D and Class E Airspace; Ardmore, OK, published in the Federal
Register of October 26, 2021 (86 FR 59015), FR Doc. 2021-23008, is
corrected as follows:

71.1   [Amended]

0
On page 59016, column 2, remove line 66.

0
On page 59016, column 2, line 67, amend to read, ``to 8.4 miles
southwest of the airport,''.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 26, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-23648 Filed 10-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 21174-21175]
[DOCID:fr18ap08-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2007-27181 (Notice No. 08-5)]

Notice of Information Collection Approval

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Information Collection Approval.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval and extension until March 31, 2010 for the following
information collection requests (ICRs): OMB Control No. 2137-0572,
``Testing Requirements for Non-Bulk Packaging''; and approval and
extension until August 31, 2010 for OMB Control No. 2137-0039,
``Hazardous Materials Incidents.''
    This notice also announces OMB approval and extension until October
31, 2010 for the following ICRs: OMB Control No. 2137-0018,
``Inspection and Testing of Portable Tanks and Intermediate Bulk
Containers''; and OMB Control No. 2137-0595, ``Cargo Tank Motor
Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service.''
    Additionally, this notice announces OMB approval and extension
until February 28, 2011 for the following ICRs: OMB Control No. 2137-
0014, ``Cargo Tank Specification Requirements''; OMB Control No. 2137-
0542, ``Flammable Cryogenic Liquids''; OMB Control No. 2137-0582,
``Container Certification Statements''; and OMB Control No. 2137-0591,
``Response Plans for Shipments of Oil.''

DATES: The expiration dates for these ICRs are either March 31, 2010,
August 31, 2010, October 31, 2010, or February 28, 2011 as indicated
under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of an information collection should be
directed to Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards (PHH-11), Pipeline and

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster,
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-11), Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) require that interested members
of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on
information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR
1320.8(s)) and specify that no person is required to respond to an
information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA has
received OMB approval for renewal of the following ICRs:

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0572.
    Title: ``Testing Requirements for Non-Bulk Packaging.''
    Expiration Date: March 31, 2010.

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0039.
    Title: ``Hazardous Materials Incident Reports.''
    Expiration Date: August 31, 2010.

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0018.
    Title: ``Inspection and Testing of Portable Tanks and Intermediate
Bulk Containers.''
    Expiration Date: October 31, 2010.

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0595.
    Title: ``Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas
Service.''
    Expiration Date: October 31, 2010.

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0014.
    Title: ``Cargo Tank Specification Requirements.''
    Expiration Date: February 28, 2011.

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0542.
    Title: ``Flammable Cryogenic Liquids.''
    Expiration Date: February 28, 2011.

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0582.
    Title: ``Container Certification Statements.''
    Expiration Date: February 28, 2011.

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0591.
    Title: ``Response Plans for Shipments of Oil.''
    Expiration Date: February 28, 2011.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 15, 2008.
Edward T. Mazzullo,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards.
 [FR Doc. E8-8512 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4069]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01469]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94008; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2021-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed
Rule Change To Introduce a New Data Product To Be Known as the Short
Volume Report, Modify the Name of Rule 13.8 to ``Data Products'', and
Add a Preamble to Rule 13.8

January 20, 2022.
    On November 17, 2021, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt
Exchange Rule 13.8(h) to introduce a new data product to be known as
the Short Volume Report, modify the name of Rule 13.8 to ``Data
Products'', and add a preamble to Rule 13.8. The proposed rule change
was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93696 (December 1,
2021), 86 FR 69306. Comments received on the proposal are available
on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedgx-2021-049/srcboeedgx2021049.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission will either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 21, 2022. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
March 7, 2022 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve
or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2021-049).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01469 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9664-9666]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02744]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0597; FRL-10005-17-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; ID: Idaho Portion of the Logan UT-ID 2006 24-
Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area; Moderate Plan Elements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the Idaho State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted on July 31, 2018. The submission includes Reasonable
Further Progress and Quantitative Milestone attainment plan elements,
along with updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets, for the Idaho
portion of the Logan, Utah-Idaho fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (Logan UT-ID area). The EPA's
prior conditional approval for these elements will be removed and these
elements are now fully approved.

DATES: The final rule is effective March 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0597, at https://www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and is publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 10, Office of Air and Waste, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Jentgen,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On December 14, 2012 and December 24, 2014, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted attainment plan elements
designed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Idaho portion of the Logan UT-ID
area. On January 4, 2017, the EPA approved Idaho's control measures as
meeting Reasonably Available Control Measures/Technology (RACM/RACT),
disapproved the attainment plan submission for contingency measures,
and deferred action on the attainment demonstration, Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP), Quantitative Milestone (QM), and Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets (MVEB) requirements (82 FR 729). Following our
January 4, 2017, action, in an April 25, 2017 letter, Idaho committed
to further address the RFP, QM, and MVEB requirements by August 1,
2018. Because Idaho committed to address these requirements within one
year, in specific ways that the EPA considered appropriate, the EPA
conditionally approved the RFP, QM, and MVEB elements of the Idaho
attainment plan on August 8, 2017 (82 FR 37025). In that same action,
we also finalized approval of the Idaho attainment demonstration and
the 2014 MVEBs as early progress budgets. Based on quality-assured,
quality-controlled data for the period 2015-2017 showing that the area
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, on October 19, 2018,
the EPA finalized a determination of attainment by the attainment date
and clean data determination for the Logan UT-ID area (83 FR 52983).
    On July 31, 2018, Idaho submitted a SIP revision to further address
the RFP, QM, and MVEB elements that the EPA conditionally approved on
August 8, 2017 (Cache SIP Amendment or submission). The submission can
be found in the docket for this action. On October 15, 2019, the EPA
proposed to approve the RFP and QM elements and revised MVEBs in this
submission as meeting the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's
implementing regulations (84 FR 55100). Please see our proposed
rulemaking for further explanation and the basis for our finding. The
public comment period for this proposal ended on November 14, 2019. No
comments were submitted.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the RFP and QM elements and revised MVEBs in
the Cache SIP Amendment. In taking this final action, the EPA's prior
conditional approval is removed, and these elements are now fully
approved.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 20, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: January 28, 2020.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670, amend the table in paragraph (e), under the heading
``Chapter VIII--Nonattainment Area Plans,'' by removing the two entries
entitled ``Fine Particulate Matter Attainment Plan'' and adding an
entry at the end of the table entitled ``Cache Valley Fine Particulate
Matter Attainment Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Idaho Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable
                                geographic or                                     EPA approval
    Name of SIP  provision      nonattainment        State submittal date             date           Comments
                                     area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Cache Valley Fine Particulate  Franklin         12/19/2012, 12/24/2014, 7/31/   1/4/2017, 82 FR
 Matter Attainment Plan.        County, Logan    2018.                           729; 8/8/2017,
                                UT-ID PM2.5                                      82 FR 37025; 2/
                                Nonattainment                                    20/2020,
                                Area.                                            [Insert
                                                                                Federal
                                                                                Register
                                                                                citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-02744 Filed 2-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13274-13275]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0182]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Broadway Bridge across the
Willamette River, mile 11.7, at Portland, OR. The deviation is
necessary to accommodate the Portland Race for the Roses event. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position to facilitate the safe movement of event participants across
the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on April
17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0182] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Multnomah County requested for the Broadway
Bridge to remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate the safe,
uninterrupted roadway passage of participants in the Portland Race for
the Roses event. The Broadway Bridge crosses the Willamette River at
mile 11.7, and provides 90 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia
River Datum 0.0 while in the closed-to-navigation position. This bridge
operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897. This deviation allows the
bascule span of the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile
11.7, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open
for maritime traffic from 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on April 17, 2016.
The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other
times. Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes
vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.
We have coordinated with the majority of waterway users and there were
no objections to this schedule.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may
do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 8, 2016.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. 2016-05620 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P