[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65278-65279]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8816; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-5]

Amendment of Class E Airspace, Ithaca, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace Designated as an Extension
at Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY, by updating the
geographic coordinates of the Ithaca VHF omnidirectional range/distance
measuring equipment, (VOR/DME), and the airport, as well as changing
the airport name. This is an administrative change and does not affect
the boundaries or operating requirements of the airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace at Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport,
Ithaca, NY.

History

    In a review of the airspace for Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport
(formerly Tompkins County Airport), Ithaca, NY, the FAA found the
airport name and geographic coordinates for the airport and the Ithaca
VOR/DME, as published in FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, do not match the FAA's charting information for Class
E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 of
FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace designated as an extension at
Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY. A minor adjustment to the
geographic coordinates of the airport and the Ithaca VOR/DME is made to
be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database, as well as a name
change from Tompkins County Airport to Ithaca Tompkins Regional
Airport.
    This is an administrative change and does not affect the
boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore,
notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016,
effective

September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AEA NY E4 Ithaca, NY [Amended]

Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY
    (Lat. 42[deg]29'29'' N., long. 76[deg]27'31'' W.)
Ithaca VOR/DME
    (Lat. 42[deg]29'42'' N., long. 76[deg]27'35'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface from the 4-mile
radius of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport to the 5.7-mile
radius of the airport; clockwise from the 329[deg] bearing to the
081[deg] bearing from the airport; that airspace from the 4-mile
radius of Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport to the 8.7-mile radius of
the airport extending clockwise from the 081[deg] bearing to the
137[deg] from the airport; that airspace from the 4-mile radius of
Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport; to the 6.6-mile radius of the
airport, extending clockwise from the 137[deg] bearing to the
170[deg] bearing from the airport; that airspace from the 4-mile
radius to the 5.7-mile radius of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional
Airport, extending clockwise from the 170[deg] bearing to the
196[deg] bearing from the airport; and that airspace within 2.7
miles each side of the Ithaca VOR/DME 305[deg] radial extending from
the 4-mile radius of Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport to 7.4 miles
northwest of the Ithaca VOR/DME. This Class E airspace area is
effective during specific dates and times established in advance by
a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
published continuously in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 7, 2016.
Joey L. Medders,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-22741 Filed 9-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48371-48375]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19762]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75632; File No. SR-ISE-2014-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Disapproving a Proposed Rule Change To Modify ISE's Opening
Process

August 6, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On November 19, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or the ``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to modify the
opening process of the Exchange. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on December 10,

2014.\3\ On January 23, 2015, the Commission extended the time period
within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change to March 10, 2015.\4\ On March 10,
2015, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
of the Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.\6\ On May 13, 2015, the Commission received a
letter from the Exchange responding to the Order Instituting
Proceedings.\7\ The Commission received one other comment on the
proposed rule change.\8\ This Order disapproves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73736 (December 4,
2014), 79 FR 73354 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74126 (January 23,
2015), 80 FR 4953 (January 29, 2015).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74465 (March 10,
2015), 80 FR 13660 (March 16, 2015) (``Order Instituting
Proceedings''). On June 4, 2015, the Commission designated a longer
period for Commission action the proposed rule change to August 7,
2015. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75104 (June 4, 2015),
80 FR 33001 (June 10, 2015).
    \7\ See Letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Mike Simon, Secretary and General Counsel, dated May 13, 2015 (``ISE
Letter'').
    \8\ See Letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Benjamin Londergan, Head of Options Trading and Technology,
Convergex Execution Solutions LLC, dated June 1, 2015 (``Convergex
Letter''). In its letter, Convergex stated that it supported the
proposal because it believed the ``inherent protections and improved
pricing will be of significant benefit to customers and outweigh any
perceived advantages of the current single-priced opening process.''
See Convergex Letter at 1. The Convergex Letter noted that ISE's
current opening process did not provide away market price
protection, but the proposed rule change would introduce an
iterative opening process where priority customer orders would be
eligible for away market routing under certain circumstances. As a
consequence of this change, Convergex believed its customers would
``obtain better execution quality in an increasingly fair and
orderly market than they enjoy currently under the ISE's present
opening process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to modify the process by which the Exchange's
trading system opens trading at the beginning of the day and after
trading halts.\9\ Specifically, ISE proposes to ``modify the opening
process by moving from a single price opening'' to an iterative opening
process, which could result in four separate opening prices for a
single option series.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange also proposes to codify certain existing
functionality within the trading system (regarding the procedures to
initiate the opening rotation at the Exchange's opening and
reopening after a trading halt) that was not previously described in
the Exchange's rules. A more detailed description of the initiation
procedure is available in the Notice. See Notice, supra note 3 at
73355.
    \10\ See id. at 73356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is the case today, under the proposal, if there is executable
interest prior to the opening, ISE's trading system would first
calculate a range of prices within which to open the options series
(``Boundary Prices''). To determine the Boundary Prices, the trading
system would use ISE market makers' quotes. Specifically, the trading
system would use the quotes of ISE's Primary Market Maker (``PMM'')
quotes, or in their absence, the best quotes of ISE's Competitive
Market Makers (``CMMs'') on the corresponding side (PMMs, together with
CMMs, ``ISE Market Makers'').\11\ If there are no PMM or CMM quotes on
the bid side, the lowest minimum trading increment for the option class
would be used. If there are no PMM or CMM quotes on the offer side,
however, ``the options class would not open because in the absence of
an offer there would be no limit as to the price at which an opening
trade could occur.'' \12\ Under ISE's proposal, each iteration of the
opening process would widen the Boundary Prices, except for the last
iteration which would have no Boundary Prices. Each iteration as
proposed is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ISE has two categories of market makers: PMMs and CMMs. A
PMM is appointed to each options class traded on the Exchange but a
CMM may or may not be appointed to each such options class. See ISE
Rule 802.
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 73356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the Notice, in the first iteration, the trading
system would attempt to derive the opening price to be at or better
than either: The PMM's best bid and offer, or in the absence of a PMM
quote, the best bid and offer of CMMs (``ISE Market Maker Quotes'');
\13\ or the away best bid and offer (``ABBO''), whichever is better.
Accordingly, if the options class is open on another exchange, the
Boundary Prices would be determined to be the higher of the ISE Market
Maker's bid or the away best bid and the lower of the ISE Market
Maker's offer or the away best offer. If the options class is not yet
open on another exchange, the Boundary Prices would be determined by
the PMM or CMM quotes, as described above. Once the trading system has
determined the Boundary Prices, it then would determine the price at
which the maximum number of contracts could trade at or within the
Boundary Prices (the ``execution price'') \14\ and process orders and
quotes at the execution price as follows--market orders would be given
priority before limit orders and quotes, then limit orders and quotes
would be given priority by price. For limit orders and quotes with the
same price, priority would be accorded first to Priority Customer
Orders \15\ over Professional Orders \16\ and quotes. Priority Customer
Orders with the same limit price would be executed on a random basis
\17\ while Professional Orders and quotes with the same limit price
would be executed pro-rata based on size. If the Boundary Prices were
calculated using the ABBO, any remaining Public Customer Orders,\18\
but not Non-Customer \19\ Orders, that would lock or cross an ABBO
would be processed in accordance with Supplementary Material .02 to ISE
Rule 1901.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id. for an example showing the calculation of the
execution price following the first iteration.
    \15\ Pursuant to ISE Rules 100(a)(37A) and 100(a)(37B), a
``Priority Customer Order'' is an order for the account of a person
or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
    \16\ Pursuant to ISE Rule 100(a)(37C), a ``Professional Order''
is an order that is for the account of a person or entity that is
not a Priority Customer.
    \17\ Priority Customer Orders with the same limit price in the
regular order book are currently executed in time priority during
the opening. The Exchange states in the Notice that it believes
executing these orders on a random basis is a fairer approach
because the current time priority is dependent on when such orders
are communicated to the Exchange by a Priority Customer's broker,
not the time the Priority Customer expressed interest in doing the
trade. See Notice, supra note 3, at 73356.
    \18\ Pursuant to ISE Rules 100(a)(38) and 100(a)(39), a ``Public
Customer'' means a person or entity that is not a broker or dealer
in securities and a ``Public Customer Order'' means an order for the
account of a Public Customer.
    \19\ Pursuant to ISE Rule 100(a)(27), a ``Non-Customer'' means a
person or entity that is a broker or dealer in securities.
    \20\ As stated in the Notice, under the Options Order Protection
and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``Options Linkage Plan'' or
``Linkage Plan''), the Exchange cannot execute orders at a price
that is inferior to the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''),
absent an applicable exception, nor can the Exchange place an order
on its book that would cause the ISE best bid or offer to lock or
cross another exchange's quote. See Notice, supra note 3, at 73356.
ISE's rule requires that, before orders are rejected or routed to an
away market, an order that would otherwise lock or cross another
exchange's bid or offer be exposed to all ISE members for up to one
second to give the members an opportunity to execute against the
order at the NBBO or better. See Supplementary Material .02 to Rule
1901. If after an order is exposed, the order cannot be executed in
full on the Exchange at the then-current NBBO or better, and it is
marketable, the lesser of the full displayed size of the Protected
Bid(s) or Protected Offer(s) that are priced better than the ISE's
quote or the balance of the order will be sent to the linkage
handler and any additional balance of the order will be executed on
the ISE if it is marketable. Any additional balance of the order
that is not marketable against the then-current NBBO will be placed
on the ISE book. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, if after the first iteration there
remained unexecuted orders and quotes that would lock or cross each
other, the trading system would initiate a second

iteration.\21\ In the second iteration, the trading system would use
either the ISE Market Maker Quotes or the ABBO,\22\ whichever was not
used in the first iteration, to establish the Boundary Prices. For
example, if the ISE Market Maker Quotes were used in the first
iteration, the second iteration would use the ABBO and vice versa. If,
during the first iteration, there were no ABBO, then the second
iteration would not occur, and the trading system would initiate the
third iteration as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 73357, for an example showing
the calculation of the execution price following the second
iteration.
    \22\ The ABBO prices considered in the first iteration are also
used during the second iteration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the second iteration, the trading system would again determine
the execution price at which the maximum number of contracts could
trade at or within the widened Boundary Prices. Once the trading system
determines the second execution price, orders and quotes would be
processed as follows--market orders would be given priority before
limit orders and quotes, then limit orders and quotes would be given
priority by price. For limit orders and quotes with the same price,
priority would be accorded first to Priority Customer Orders over
Professional Orders and quotes. Priority Customer Orders with the same
limit price would be executed in random order while Professional Orders
and quotes with the same limit price would be executed pro-rata based
on size. If the Boundary Prices in the second iteration were calculated
using the ABBO, any remaining Public Customer Orders, but not Non-
Customer Orders, that would lock or cross a bid or offer from another
exchange would be processed in accordance with Supplementary Material
.02 to ISE Rule 1901.
    If after the second iteration there remained unexecuted orders and
quotes that lock or cross each other, the trading system would initiate
a third iteration.\23\ In the third iteration, the prior Boundary
Prices (i.e., the prices used in the second iteration and, in the case
where the second iteration did not occur, the prices used in the first
iteration) would be widened by two trading increments. The trading
system would then again determine the price at which the maximum number
of contracts could trade at or within the widened Boundary Prices. Once
the trading system determines the third execution price, orders and
quotes would be processed as follows--market orders would be given
priority before limit orders and quotes, then limit orders and quotes
would be given priority by price. For limit orders and quotes with the
same price, priority would be accorded first to Priority Customer
Orders over Professional Orders and quotes. Priority Customer Orders
with the same limit price would be executed in random order while
Professional Orders and quotes with the same limit price would be
executed pro-rata based on size. Thereafter, any unexecuted Priority
Customer Orders that lock or cross the Boundary Prices would be handled
by the PMM \24\ and any unexecuted Professional Orders and Non-Customer
Orders that lock or cross the Boundary Prices would be canceled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 73357, for an example showing
the calculation of the execution price following the third
iteration.
    \24\ The PMM has the obligation under existing Exchange rules to
engage in dealings for its own account when, among other things,
there is a temporary disparity between the supply of and demand for
a particular options contract, and to act with due diligence in
handling orders. See ISE Rule 803(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If after the third iteration there remained unexecuted orders and
quotes that lock or cross each other, the trading system would initiate
the fourth and final iteration.\25\ In the fourth iteration, the
trading system would not calculate new Boundary Prices. The trading
system would simply trade any remaining interest. Thereafter, the
trading system would open the options series by disseminating the
Exchange's best bid and offer derived from the remaining orders and
quotes.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 73357-8, for an example
showing the calculation of the execution price following the fourth
and final iteration.
    \26\ See Notice, supra note 3, for a more complete description
of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\27\ the Commission shall
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to such organization.\28\ The Commission shall
disapprove a proposed rule change if it does not make such a
finding.\29\ Rule 700(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules of Practice state
that the ``burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued
thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization that proposed
the rule change'' and that a ``mere assertion that the proposed rule
change is consistent with those requirements . . . is not sufficient.''
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \28\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
    \29\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(ii); see also 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \30\ See 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). ``The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding. Any failure of a self-regulatory organization to
provide the information elicited by Form 19b-4 may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative
finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder that are
applicable to the self-regulatory organization.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission does not find that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange. In particular, the Commission does not find that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\31\ which, among other things, requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. For reasons more fully
discussed below, because the Commission cannot find that the Exchange's
proposed iterative opening process would comply with Section 5 of the
Options Linkage Plan,\32\ the Commission does not find that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and, in particular,
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60405 (July 30,
2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009) (``Options Linkage Plan Approval
Order'').
    \33\ The Commission notes that ISE Rule 1901 implements Section
5 of the Options Linkage Plan by incorporating as rules of ISE the
provisions of Section 5. Accordingly, because the Commission cannot
find the Exchange's proposal consistent with Section 5 of the
Options Linkage Plan, the Commission also notes that the Exchange's
proposal may not be consistent with its own rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 30, 2009, pursuant to Section 11(A)(a)(3)(B) of the Act
\34\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\35\ the Commission approved,\36\ as a
national market system

plan, the Options Linkage Plan, which was submitted to the Commission
by all seven options exchanges then operating (``Original Participant
Exchanges'').\37\ As proposed and approved, Section 5(a) of the Options
Linkage Plan requires each participant exchange to ``establish,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures [as approved by
the SEC] that are reasonably designed to prevent Trade-Throughs in that
Participant's market in Eligible Options Classes that do not fall
within an exception set forth in [Section 5(b) of the Options Linkage
Plan] . . .'' \38\ Among others exceptions, the Options Linkage Plan
excepts from the trade-through prohibition transactions that ``traded
through a Protected Quotation being disseminated by an Eligible
Exchange during a trading rotation'' (the ``trading rotation
exception'').\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B).
    \35\ See 17 CFR 242.608.
    \36\ See Options Linkage Plan Approval Order, supra note 32.
Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission ``by rule
or order, to authorize or require self-regulatory organizations to
act jointly with respect to matters as to which they share authority
under this title in planning, developing, operating, or regulating a
national market system (or a subsystem thereof) or one or more
facilities.'' The Commission's approval of a national market system
plan is conditioned upon a finding that the proposed plan is
``necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a
national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act.'' See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
    \37\ The seven options exchanges were Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc.; ISE; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, NYSE Amex LLC (n/
k/a NYSE MKT LLC); NYSE Arca Inc.; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., and NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc.
    \38\ See Section 5(a)(i) of the Options Linkage Plan. The
Options Linkage Plan defines ``Trade-Throughs'' to mean a
``transaction in an options series, either as principal or agent, at
a price that is lower than a Protected Bid or higher than a
Protected Offer.'' Section 2(21) of the Options Linkage Plan.
``Participant'' means ``an Eligible Exchange whose participation in
the Plan has become effective pursuant to Section 3(c) of the
Plan.'' Section 2(15) of the Options Linkage Plan. ``Eligible
Options Classes'' mean ``all option series overlying a security (as
that term is defined in Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act) or
group of securities, including both put options and call options,
which class is available for trading on two or more Eligible
Exchanges.'' Section 2(7) of the Options Linkage Plan. A ``Protected
Bid'' or a ``Protected Offer'' means a ``Bid or Offer in an options
series, respectively, that: a. Is displayed by an Eligible Exchange;
b. Is disseminated pursuant to the OPRA Plan; and c. Is the Best Bid
or Best Offer, respectively, of an Eligible Exchange.'' Section
2(17) of the Options Linkage Plan. ``Eligible Exchange'' means ``a
national securities exchange registered with the SEC in accordance
with Section 6(a) of the Exchange Act that: (a) As a Participant
Exchange in OCC (as that term is defined in Section VII of the OCC
by-laws); (b) is a party to the OPRA Plan (as that term is described
in Section I of the OPRA Plan); and (c) if the national securities
exchange chooses not to become a party to this Plan, is a
participant in another plan approved by the Commission providing for
comparable Trade-Through and Locked and Crossed Market protection.''
Section 2(6) of the Options Linkage Plan.
    \39\ Section 5(b)(ii) of the Options Linkage Plan. The Options
Linkage Plan defines ``Protected Quotation'' to mean a Protected Bid
or Protected Offer. Section 2(18) of the Options Linkage Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, with respect to the operation of the
second, third, and fourth iterations of its proposed opening process,
it is relying on the trading rotation exception. Specifically, if the
second iteration utilizes the ISE Market Maker Quotes, to the extent
the iteration results in any trade-throughs, the Exchange represents
that ``such trade-throughs are permissible pursuant to Section 5(b)(ii)
of the Linkage Plan, the Trading Rotation exception, which permits a
participant exchange to trade through a Protected Quotation
disseminated by an Eligible Exchange during a trading rotation.'' \40\
Likewise, the Exchange states that any trade-throughs during the third
and fourth iterations are also permissible under the Linkage Plan
because Section 5(b)(ii) ``permits a participant exchange to trade
through a Protected Quotation disseminated by an Eligible Exchange
during a trading rotation.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 73358. See supra note 39 for
the definition of Protected Quotation and supra note 38 for the
definition of Eligible Exchange.
    \41\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 73358-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission noted that it
intended to further assess whether the Exchange's proposed iterative
opening process complies with the Options Linkage Plan and the
statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange
under the Act.\42\ The Commission invited interested persons to submit
written views with respect to these concerns. As mentioned above, ISE
submitted a letter in response to the Order Instituting Proceedings
providing additional justification for its proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, supra note 6, at 13662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its letter, ISE argues that, unlike the trade-through exception
for equities under Regulation NMS, the Options Linkage Plan does not
state that the trade-through exception for opening transactions is
limited to ``single price auctions.'' \43\ Further, ISE argues that its
proposal is consistent with the plain language of Section 5(b)(ii)
because, although the Linkage Plan does not define the term ``trading
rotation,'' at the inception of the Plan, ``that term already had a
meaningful and well understood securities law definition.'' \44\ ISE
cites to Rule 600(a)(79) of Regulation NMS, which defines ``trading
rotation'' to mean ``with respect to an options class, the time period
on a national securities exchange during which . . . [o]pening, re-
opening, or closing transactions in options series in such options
class are not yet completed; and . . . [c]ontinuous trading has not yet
commenced or has not yet ended for the day in options series in such
options class.'' \45\ ISE also suggests that if its proposal is
inconsistent with the Linkage Plan, then other options exchanges would
have negatively commented on it.\46\ ISE states that ``it is highly
suggestive that none of our competitors submitted any contrary
interpretation of the Linkage Plan.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See ISE Letter, supra note 7, at 3.
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See id. See also 17 CFR 242.600(b)(79).
    \46\ See ISE Letter, supra note 7, at 3.
    \47\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ISE Letter, the Exchange also disputes the Commission's
interpretation in the Options Linkage Approval Order that the trade-
through exception in Section 5(b)(ii) of the Plan is for a trading
rotation that is ``effectively a single price auction to price the
option.'' \48\ The Exchange concedes that ``this language is itself
copied from identical language submitted in comment letters by ISE and
other options exchanges that was intended to be a non-comprehensive
description of how our markets have traditionally operated'' but that
``they did not purport to be a binding legal interpretation of how the
Commission should interpret the term `trading rotation.' '' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See id. at 2.
    \49\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE argues, moreover, that the rationale for the Linkage Plan's
trading rotation exception applies equally to single price auctions and
iterative openings.\50\ Namely, the rationale behind Section 5(b)(ii)
was to allow options exchanges to ignore away markets during the
opening when ``there are no practical means to include prices on other
exchanges.'' \51\ Accordingly, ISE claims that the basis for the
Section 5(b)(ii) exception applies to the iterative opening process
that it proposes to adopt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See id. at 4.
    \51\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, ISE contends that it would be inappropriate for the
Commission to disapprove its proposed rule change because the new
process is designed to provide away market protection to Public
Customer Orders.\52\ According to ISE, if the Commission disapproves
the proposed rule change, the Commission's action would result in less,
not more protection for investors.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See id.
    \53\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After thoroughly reviewing the Exchange's assertions in the Notice
and the ISE Letter, including the one comment received,\54\ the
Commission cannot find that the iterative opening process proposed by
the Exchange is consistent with the Options Linkage Plan and therefore
with the Act.

Specifically, the Commission cannot find that each iteration of the
amended process would qualify as an exception under Section 5(b)(ii) of
the Linkage Plan. The Commission notes that when the Original
Participant Exchanges proposed the Options Linkage Plan, all seven
exchanges represented to the Commission that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Convergex Letter, supra note 8.

    Section 5(b)(ii) of the Plan carries forward the current Trade-
Through exception in the old plan and is the options equivalent to
the single price opening exception in Regulation NMS for equity
securities. Options exchanges use a trading rotation to open an
option for trading, or to reopen an option after a trading halt. The
rotation is effectively a single price auction to price the option
and there are no practical means to include prices on other
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
exchanges in that auction.

    (emphasis added).\55\ Relying on this unanimous representation from
all exchanges who jointly proposed the Options Linkage Plan, the
Commission stated in the Options Linkage Plan Approval Order that the
language used in the Section 5(b)(ii) is ``similar to an exception
available for NMS stocks under Regulation NMS,'' \56\ and ``[a]s noted
by the Participants, the trading rotation is effectively a single price
auction to price the option.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Letter from Michael Simon, Secretary, ISE, dated
November 7, 2008, and available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nms/2008/4-546-ise-amend3.pdf. See also Letters from Peter G. Armstrong,
Managing Director, Options, NYSE Arca, dated October 30, 2008,
available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nms/2008/4-546-nysearca-amend3.pdf; Edward J. Joyce, President & Chief Operating Officer,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, dated November 21, 2008, available
at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nms/2008/4-546-cboe-amend1.pdf;
Jeffrey P. Burns, Managing Director, NYSE Alternext US LLC, dated
November 25, 2008, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nms/2008/4-546-nysealtr-amend1.pdf; John Katovich, Vice President, BSE,
dated December 1, 2008, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nms/2008/4-546-bse-amend1.pdf; Richard S. Rudolph, Counsel, Nasdaq
OMX Phlx, dated December 3, 2008, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nms/2008/4-546-phlx-amend1.pdf; and Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice
President & Deputy General Counsel, Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, dated
December 4, 2008, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nms/2008/4-546-nasdaq-amend1.pdf.
    \56\ See Options Linkage Plan Approval Order, supra note 32, at
39366. See also Rule 611(b)(3) of Regulation NMS under the Act (17
CFR 242.611(b)(3)) which provides that ``the transaction that
constituted the trade-through was a single-priced opening,
reopening, or closing transaction by the trading center.''
    \57\ See Options Linkage Plan Approval Order, supra note 32, at
39366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission acknowledges that the text of Section 5(b)(ii) of
the Options Linkage Plan refers to the trade-through exception during a
``trading rotation,'' not a ``single price auction.'' But as even the
Exchange notes in the ISE Letter, the Options Linkage Plan also does
not define the term ``trading rotation'' nor provide additional
clarification to what the trading rotation exception under Section
5(b)(ii) means.\58\ In addition, as noted above, all seven exchanges
that jointly proposed the Linkage Plan explicitly represented to the
Commission that the trading rotation exception is ``similar to an
exception available for NMS stocks under Regulation NMS'' and is
``effectively a single price auction to price the option.'' \59\
Accordingly, in the absence of any basis in the Options Linkage Plan
itself for the Commission to determine otherwise, and in light of
prior, explicit representations by the Original Participant Exchanges
that the trading rotation exception applies to a ``single price
auction,'' the Commission cannot find that the Exchange's proposal is
consistent with the Linkage Plan and thereby the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Further, the Commission notes that the Linkage Plan refers
to a singular ``trading rotation'' not, as ISE implies, multiple
``trading rotations.''
    \59\ See supra note 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission acknowledges that the ISE's proposed iterative
opening process, unlike its current process, would provide away market
protection for Public Customer Orders. For the reasons discussed above,
however, the Commission cannot find that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Options Linkage Plan or the Act. Further, the
Commission does not agree with the Exchange that the decision of other
options exchanges not to comment on the proposed rule change equates to
agreement with ISE's interpretation of the trading rotation exception.
It would be inappropriate for the Commission to draw any such
conclusion unless explicitly stated by a commenter. As ISE itself
noted, ``exchanges may have several reasons for not commenting on a
proposed rule change.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See ISE Letter, supra note 7, at 3. ISE also provides as an
exhibit to its response letter data purporting to show trade-
throughs from all options exchanges during the first minute of
trading on April 29, 2015, and April 30, 2015. According to ISE, the
data shows trade-throughs from every exchange, with the total number
of contracts trading through being 9,316 on April 29, and 48,269
contracts on April 30. See Exhibit to ISE Letter, supra note 7. The
Commission cannot surmise from the data whether the trade-throughs
are occurring without an exception or whether the exchanges are not
complying with the Linkage Plan or their own rules. The Commission
notes that the Options Linkage Plan provides that if a participant
exchange relies on a trade-through exception, it would be required
to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to assure compliance with the terms of the
exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in analyzing the proposed rule change, and in making its
determination to disapprove the rule change, the Commission has
considered whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and
capital formation,\61\ but, as discussed above, the Commission cannot
find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Options
Linkage Plan or Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Whenever pursuant to the Act the Commission is engaged in
rulemaking or the review of a rule of a self-regulatory
organization, and is required to consider or determine whether an
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, the
Commission shall also consider, in addition to the protection of
investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission does not find that the
proposed rule change, is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,
and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2014-24), be, and hereby is,
disapproved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19762 Filed 8-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54897-54901]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0423; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-176-AD;
Amendment 39-17714; AD 2013-26-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E,
F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; and Model
MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of a manufacturing defect in the charge indicator
on fire extinguisher bottles. This AD requires repetitive weighing of
fire extinguisher bottles having a certain part number, and eventual
replacement of those bottles to terminate the repetitive weighing. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct a dormant failure in the fire
suppression system, which could result in the inability to put out a
fire in an engine, auxiliary power unit, or rear compartment.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 20, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 20,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0423; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault
Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-
440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model
FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes;
Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-
D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 21, 2013 (78 FR 29669). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of a manufacturing defect in the charge indicator on fire
extinguisher bottles. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive weighing
of fire extinguisher bottles having a certain part number, and eventual
replacement of those bottles to terminate the repetitive weighing. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct a dormant failure in the fire
suppression system, which could result in the inability to put out a
fire in an engine, auxiliary power unit, or rear compartment.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0189, dated September 24, 2012 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation
Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G
airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON
20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A manufacturing defect of the charge indicator of fire
extinguisher bottles has been reported on Dassault Aviation Fan Jet
Falcon and Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 20 series aeroplanes.
    The results of the investigations concluded that this defect may
lead to corrosion of the charge indicator, causing improper
indication of loss of pressure inside the bottle. In addition, the
Part Numbers (P/N) of the fire extinguishers and batch numbers of
the affected charge indicators have been identified.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could constitute
a dormant failure that might impact the capability to extinguish a
fire, either in an engine or the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) or the
rear compartment, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and
injury to the occupants.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive weighing of the affected fire extinguishers bottles and,
ultimately replacement of the affected bottles with serviceable
bottles. In addition, this [EASA] AD prohibits installation of an
affected fire extinguisher bottle.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0423-0003.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 29669, May 21,
2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or
misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/
operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of
deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The
Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other
information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, EASA, or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``design approval holder (DAH) with State of
Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we have
provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of
Design Authority for the DAH.

Explanation of Changes to This AD

    Paragraphs (h)(2), (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(iii), (h)(2)(iv), (i), (i)(1),
(i)(3), (i)(4), (j)(1), (j)(3), and (j)(4) of this AD were revised to
state that required actions must be done in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. The
service information previously referenced in those paragraphs is now
referenced as guidance material in notes to the applicable paragraphs.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 29669, May 21, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 29669, May 21, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 185 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $6,400 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be up to $1,246,900, or $6,740 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0423; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2013-26-05 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-17714. Docket No. FAA-
2013-0423; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-176-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 20,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN
JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON
200 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-
F5 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
Protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of a manufacturing defect in the
charge indicator on fire extinguisher bottles. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct a dormant failure in the fire suppression
system, which could result in the inability to put out a fire in an
engine, auxiliary power unit (APU), or rear compartment.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD, the following definitions apply.
    (1) An affected fire extinguisher bottle is any fire
extinguisher bottle having a part number (P/N) included in table 1
to paragraph (h) of this AD and having a manufacturing batch number
168 through 200 inclusive on the data plate of the charge indicator.
    (2) A serviceable fire extinguisher bottle is any fire
extinguisher bottle having a manufacturing batch number lower than
168 or higher than 200 on the data plate of the charge indicator.

(h) Determining Charge Indicator Batch Number

    Within 30 days or 100 flight hours after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first: Determine the manufacturing batch
number for the charge indicator installed on each engine and APU
fire extinguisher bottle having a part number included in table 1 to
the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin
F20-785, also referred to as 785, dated June 11, 2012 (for Model FAN
JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and
Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes); or
Dassault Service Bulletin F200-131, also referred to as 131, dated
June 11, 2012 (for Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes).

   Table 1 to the Introductory Text of Paragraph (h) of This AD--Part
              Numbers of Affected Fire Extinguisher Bottles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Type of bottle--                      Part number--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Fire Extinguisher Bottle......  111-1555-324-12A
Engine Fire Extinguisher Bottle......  811456
Engine Fire Extinguisher Bottle......<PHONE_NUMBER>2A
APU Fire Extinguisher Bottle.........  111-011-324-12A
APU Fire Extinguisher Bottle.........  811475
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) For fire extinguisher bottles with part numbers that are not
included in table 1 to the introductory text of paragraph (h) of
this AD, no further action is required by this paragraph.
    (2) For any affected charge indicator, as identified in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Before further flight, weigh each
affected fire extinguisher bottle, in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Weigh
the fire extinguishers thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12
months until the applicable replacement specified in paragraph
(h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), (h)(2)(iii), (h)(2)(iv), or (j) of this AD is
accomplished. If it is determined that the fire extinguisher weighs
less than the lowest weight limit indicated on the fire
extinguisher's data plate, before further flight, replace any
affected fire extinguisher bottle and charge indicator cartridge
with a serviceable part, in accordance with the applicable method
specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), (h)(2)(iii), or
(h)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: The instructions
specified in Dassault Maintenance Procedure, ``Weighing of Engine
Freon Fire Extinguishers,'' (page 601, ``Inspection/Check'') of
Subject 26-20-2, ``Extinguishing System--Description and Operation,
of Chapter 26, ``Fire Protection,'' in Book 2 of the Dassault Falcon
20 Maintenance Manual, Phase 50, dated October 2011 (for Model FAN
JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and
Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes); or
Procedure 2, ``Engine and Rear Compartment Extinguisher (14W1-14W2):
Weighing'' of Falcon 200 Maintenance Requirement Card 171.0, Revised
December 2011, of Chapter 26, ``Fire Protection,'' in Book 1, ``Work
Cards,'' of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, Revision 30,
dated December 2011 (for Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes);
provide additional guidance for weighing affected fire extinguisher
bottles. This service information is not incorporated by reference
in this AD.

    (i) For Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F,
and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and
20-F5 airplanes: Replace the charge indicator cartridge with a
serviceable part, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    Note 2 to paragraphs (h)(2)(i), (i), (i)(1), and (j)(1) of this
AD: The instructions specified in Dassault Maintenance Procedure,
``Removal of Pyrotechnical Cartridge for Check/Replacement'' (pages
401-403, ``Removal/Installation''), of Subject 26-20-2
``Extinguishing System--Description and Operation,'' of Chapter 26,
``Fire Protection,'' in Book 2 of the Dassault Falcon 20 Maintenance
Manual, Phase 50, dated October 2011, are a source of guidance for
the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i), (i), (i)(1), and
(j)(1) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.

    (ii) For Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F,
and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and
20-F5 airplanes: Replace the fire extinguisher bottle with a
serviceable part, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    (iii) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: Replace the charge
indicator cartridge with a serviceable part, in accordance with a
method approved by the

Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    Note 3 to paragraphs (h)(2)(iii), (i), (i)(3), and (j)(3) of
this AD: Procedure 3, ``Engine and Rear Compartment Extinguisher
(14W1-14W2): Check/Replacement of Percussion Cartridge,'' of Falcon
200 Maintenance Requirement Card 171.0, Revised December 2011, of
Chapter 26, ``Fire Protection'', in Book 1, ``Work Cards,'' of the
Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, Revision 30, dated December
2011, is a source of guidance for paragraphs (h)(2)(iii), (i),
(i)(3), and (j)(3) of this AD. This service information is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (iv) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: Replace the fire
extinguisher bottle with a serviceable part, in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA.

    Note 4 to paragraphs (h)(2)(iv), (i)(4), and (j)(4) of this AD:
Procedure 1, ``Removal/Installation,'' of Falcon 200 Maintenance
Requirement Card 171.0, Revised December 2011, of Chapter 26, ``Fire
Protection'', in Book 1, ``Work Cards,'' of the Dassault Falcon 200
Maintenance Manual, Revision 30, dated December 2011, is a source of
guidance for replacing the fire extinguisher bottle. This service
information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Repetitive Inspections To Determine if Charge Indicator Cartridge
Was Fired

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an
inspection to determine if the charge indicator cartridge installed
on each engine and APU fire extinguisher bottle, as identified in
table 1 to the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD, was
fired, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 6 months until the replacement specified
in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(4), or (j) of this AD is
accomplished. If it is determined that any charge indicator
cartridge was fired, before further flight, replace the affected
fire extinguisher bottle and charge indicator cartridge with a
serviceable part, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    (1) For Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F,
and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 2-D5, 20-E5, and
20-F5 airplanes: Replace the charge indicator cartridge with a
serviceable part, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    (2) For Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F,
and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and
20-F5 airplanes: Replace the fire extinguisher bottle with a
serviceable part, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    (3) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: Replace the charge
indicator cartridge with a serviceable part, in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA.
    (4) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: Replace the fire
extinguisher bottle with a serviceable part, in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA.

(j) Replacement of Fire Extinguisher Bottle and Charge Indicator
Cartridge

    Unless previously accomplished as specified in paragraph (h) or
(i) of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this
AD, replace any affected fire extinguisher bottle and charge
indicator cartridge, as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD,
with a serviceable part, in accordance with the method specified in
paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), or (j)(4) of this AD, as
applicable. Replacement of any affected fire extinguisher bottle and
charge indicator cartridge with a serviceable part terminates the
repetitive actions specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
    (1) For Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F,
and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and
20-F5 airplanes: Replace the charge indicator cartridge with a
serviceable part, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    (2) For Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F,
and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and
20-F5 airplanes: Replace the fire extinguisher bottle with a
serviceable part, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    (3) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: Replace the charge
indicator cartridge with a serviceable part, in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA.
    (4) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: Replace the fire
extinguisher bottle with a serviceable part, in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, a fire extinguisher bottle having a part number
included in table 1 to the introductory text of paragraph (h) of
this AD, fitted with a charge indicator having a manufacturing batch
number on the data plate of 168 through 200 inclusive.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0189, dated September 24,
2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0423-0003.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Dassault Service Bulletin F20-785, also referred to as 785,
dated June 11, 2012.
    (ii) Dassault Service Bulletin F200-131, also referred to as
131, dated June 11, 2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 29, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-21772 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10443]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 270

[Docket No. FRA-2011-0060, Notice No. 4]
RIN 2130-AC31

System Safety Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; stay of regulations.

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

SUMMARY: On August 12, 2016, FRA published a final rule requiring
commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop and implement a
system safety program (SSP) to improve the safety of their operations.
See 81 FR 53850. In this document we are issuing a stay of those
requirements until March 21, 2017.

DATES: Effective February 10, 2017, 49 CFR part 270 is stayed until
March 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Navarrete, Trial Attorney,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration,
Office of Chief Counsel; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 12, 2016, FRA published a final
rule requiring commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop
and implement an SSP to improve the safety of their operations. See 81
FR 53850. In this document we are issuing a stay of those requirements
until March 21, 2017 consistent with guidance issued January 20, 2017,
intended to provide the new Administration an adequate opportunity to
review new and pending regulations.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20106-20107, 20118-20119, 20156,
21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 8, 2017.
Patrick T. Warren,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-02876 Filed 2-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71543-71546]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2013-0898]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Tavares Winter Thunder Vintage Race
Boat Regatta, Lake Dora; Tavares, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a special local
regulation on the waters of Lake Dora in Tavares, Florida during the
Tavares Winter Thunder Vintage Race Regatta, a series of high-speed
boat races. The event is scheduled for January 17 through 19, 2014.
Approximately 60 vessels are anticipated to participate in the races.
This proposed special local regulation is necessary to ensure the
safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the
races. The special local regulation would establish two areas: A race
area, where all persons and vessels, except those participating in the
races, are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, or
remaining; and a buffer zone around the race area, where all persons
and vessels, except those enforcing the buffer zone or authorized
participants and vessels transiting to the race area, are prohibited
from entering, transiting, anchoring, or remaining, unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before December 30, 2013. Requests for public meetings must
be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 30, 2013.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Shane Alexander, Sector
Jacksonville Office of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara
Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2013-0898] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2013-0898] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of

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

4. Public Meeting

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

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's
authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The
purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on navigable
waters of the United States during the Tavares Winter Thunder Vintage
Race Boat Regatta.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On January 17 to January 19, 2014, Classic Race Boat Association
will host the Tavares Winter Thunder Vintage Race Boat Regatta, an
exhibition of vintage and classic race boats including in water
demonstrations. The Tavares Winter Thunder Vintage Race Boat Regatta
will be held on Lake Dora in Tavares, Florida. Approximately 60 vessels
are anticipated to participate in the races. Approximately 10 spectator
vessels are expected to attend the Tavares CRA Fall Thunder Regatta.
    The proposed rule will establish a special local regulation that
encompasses certain waters of Lake Dora in Tavares, Florida. The
proposed special local regulation will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until
5 p.m. on January 17 to 19, 2014. This special local regulation is
necessary to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters of the
United States during the races. The special local regulation will
consist of the following two areas: (1) A race area, where all persons
and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the
high-speed boat races, are prohibited from entering, transiting,
anchoring, or remaining; and (2) a buffer zone around the race area,
where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels
enforcing the buffer zone, or authorized participants transiting to and
from the race area, are prohibited from entering, transiting,
anchoring, or remaining unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or buffer zone by
contacting the Captain of the Port Jacksonville by telephone at (904)
564-7513, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the race area or buffer zone is granted by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative. The
Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulations by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of
this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1)
The special local regulation will be enforced for only 25.5 hours; (2)
although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or buffer zone
without being an authorized participant or enforcing the buffer zone,
or receiving authorization from the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or
a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area
during the enforcement periods; (3) nonparticipant persons and vessels
may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race
area or buffer zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard
will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to
the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of
Lake Dora encompassed within the special local regulation from 8:30
a.m. until 5 p.m. on January 17 to 19, 2014. For the reasons discussed
in the Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 section above,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the creation of a special local regulation issued in
conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination
are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
amending 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS.

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35T07-0816 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-0816  Special Local Regulations; Tavares Winter Thunder
Vintage Race Boat Regatta, Lake Dora; Tavares, FL.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following regulated areas are established
as a special local regulation. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
    (1) Race Area. All waters of Lake Dora encompassed within the
following points: starting at Point 1 in position 28[deg]47'57.00'' N,
81[deg]43'41.00'' W; thence southwest to Point 2 in position
28[deg]47'55.71'' N, 81[deg]43'42.00'' W; thence south to Point 3 in
position 28[deg]47'53.99'' N, 81[deg]43'40.05'' W; thence east to Point
4 in position 28[deg]47'56.52'' N, 81[deg]43'28.46'' W; thence
northeast to Point 5 in position 28[deg]47'58.80'' N, 81[deg]43'27.51''
W; thence north to Point 6 in position 28[deg]47'59.60'' N,
81[deg]43'28.00'' W; thence west back to origin. All persons and
vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-
speed boat races, the Captain of the Port of Jacksonville or designated
representatives, are prohibited from entering, transiting through,
anchoring in, or remaining within the race area.
    (2) Buffer Zone. All waters of Lake Dora, excluding the race area,
encompassed within the following points: starting at Point 1 in
position 28[deg]47'58.37'' N, 81[deg]43'48.28'' W; thence southeast to
Point 2 in position 28[deg]47'49.08'' N, 81[deg]43'43.44'' W; thence
northeast to Point 3 in position 28[deg]47'54.89'' N, 81[deg]43'20.38''
W; thence north to Point 4 in position 28[deg]48'03.44'' N,
81[deg]43'25.04'' W; thence west following the shoreline back to
origin. All persons and vessels except those persons and vessels
enforcing the buffer zone, or authorized participants transiting to or
from the race area, are prohibited from entering, transiting through,
anchoring in, or remaining within the buffer zone.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from:

    (a) Entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the race area unless participating in the race.
    (b) Entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the buffer zone, unless enforcing the buffer zone or an authorized race
participant transiting to or from the race area.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated areas may contact the Captain of the
Port Jacksonville by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas to
the public by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners,
and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 8:30 a.m.
until 5 p.m. on January 17 through 19, 2014.

    Dated: November 14, 2013.
T. G. Allan, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2013-28580 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P