[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68083-68084]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23754]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78953; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Change, as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2, Establishing Fees Relating to End Users and Amending the
Definition of ``Affiliate,'' as Well as Amending the NYSE Price List To
Reflect the Changes

September 27, 2016.
    On April 4, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the co-location section of the NYSE Price
List to establish fees relating to end users of certain co-location
Users in the Exchange's data center and to amend the definition of
``Affiliate.'' The Commission published the proposed rule change for
comment in the Federal Register on April 22, 2016.\3\ On April 29,
2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission received two comment letters on the proposed
rule change.\5\ On June 8, 2016, 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 approve
or disapprove the proposed rule change to July 21, 2016.\6\ On June 24,
2016, the Exchange submitted a Response Letter and filed Amendment No.
2 to the proposed rule change. \7\ On July 27, 2016, the Commission
instituted proceedings pursuant to Exchange Act Section 19(b)(2)(B) to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.\8\ The Commission received no
additional comments on 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. 34-77642 (April 18,
2016), 81 FR 23786 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 made technical changes relating to the
General Notes numbering and references in the Co-location section of
the Price List. Amendment No. 1 is available on the Commission's Web
site at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-11/nyse201611-1.pdf.
    \5\ See Letter from Michael Friedman, General Counsel and Chief
Compliance Officer, Trillium, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated May 13, 2016 (``Friedman
Letter''), and Letter from Eero Pikat to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, dated, May 13, 2016 (``Pikat
Letter'') (together, the ``Comment Letters,'').
     In response to the Comment Letters, the NYSE submitted a
response (``Response Letter'') and filed Amendment No. 2.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77976 (June 2,
2016), 81 FR 36981.
    \7\ In Amendment No. 2 the Exchange proposed that Rebroadcasting
Users and Transmittal Users would not be charged for their first two
Multicast End Users and Unicast End Users, respectively, and offers
additional support for the proposal. Amendment No. 2 was noticed in
the Commission's Order Instituting Proceedings and is also available
on the Commission's Web site at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-11/nyse201611-4.pdf.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-78387 (July 21,
2016); 81 FR 49300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 22, 2016, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. (SR-NYSE-2016-11).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23754 Filed 9-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 51870-51873]
[DOCID:fr23au10-138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0118]

Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.; Receipt of Application for Temporary
Exemption From Advanced Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption from
certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Wheego
Electric Cars, Inc., has petitioned the agency for a temporary
exemption from certain advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
The basis for the application is that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good
faith to comply with the standard.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the application, go to http://www.regulations.gov
and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice of receipt of an application for temporary exemption is
published in accordance with statutory provisions. NHTSA has not made
any judgment on the merits of the application.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than September 22,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-213,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

COMMENTS: We invite you to submit comments on the application described
above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at the
heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Small Volume Manufacturers

    In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced
air bags.'' \2\ The upgrade was designed to meet the goals of improving
protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, in
moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by
air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low-
speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advanced air bag requirements were a culmination of a
comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address the
adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive
consumer education program to encourage the placement of children in
rear seats.
    The new requirements were phased in beginning with the 2004 model
year. Small volume manufacturers were not subject to the advanced air
bag requirements until September 1, 2006.
    In recent years, NHTSA has addressed a number of petitions for
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The
majority of these requests have come from small manufacturers which
have petitioned on the basis of substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard.
NHTSA has granted a number of these petitions, usually in situations
where the manufacturer is supplying standard air bags in lieu of
advanced air bags.\3\ In addressing these petitions, NHTSA has
recognized that small manufacturers may face particular difficulties in
acquiring or developing advanced air bag systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., grant of petition to Panoz, 72 FR 28759 (May 22,
2007), or grant of petition to Koenigsegg, 72 FR 17608 (April 9,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has carefully tracked occupant fatalities resulting from
air bag deployment. Our data indicate that the agency's efforts in the
area of consumer education and manufacturers' providing depowered air
bags were successful in reducing air bag fatalities even before
advanced air bag requirements were implemented.
    As always, we are concerned about the potential safety implication
of any temporary exemption granted by this agency. In the present case,
we are addressing a petition for a temporary exemption from the
advanced air bag requirements submitted by a manufacturer of a small
electric car.

II. Overview of Wheego's Petition for Economic Hardship Exemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, Wheego Electric Cars, Inc. (Wheego) has submitted a petition
(dated May 31, 2010) asking the agency for a temporary exemption from
certain advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The basis for
the application is that compliance would cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard. Wheego requested the exemption for a period of three
years.

III. Statutory Basis for Requested Part 555 Exemption

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, codified as 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of Transportation authority
to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified circumstances,
motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or bumper standard.
This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has
delegated the authority for this section to NHTSA.
    NHTSA established part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle
Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory provisions
concerning temporary exemptions. Vehicle manufacturers may apply for
temporary exemptions on several bases, one of which is that compliance
would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard.
    A petitioner must provide specified information in submitting a
petition for exemption. These requirements are specified in 49 CFR
555.5, and include a number of items. Foremost among them are that the
petitioner must set forth the basis of the application under Sec.
555.6, and the reasons why the exemption would be in the public
interest and consistent with the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.

    A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its
total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production
did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA
Administrator (49 U.S.C. 30113).
    In determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets that
criterion, NHTSA considers whether a second vehicle manufacturer also
might be deemed the manufacturer of that vehicle. The statutory
provisions governing motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) do
not state that a manufacturer has substantial responsibility as
manufacturer of a vehicle simply because it owns or controls a second
manufacturer that assembled that vehicle. However, the agency considers
the statutory definition of ``manufacturer'' (49 U.S.C. 30102) to be
sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances.
Thus, NHTSA has stated that a manufacturer may be deemed to be a
sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a vehicle assembled by a second
manufacturer if the first manufacturer had a substantial role in the
development and manufacturing process of that vehicle.
    Finally, while 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions from a
Safety Act standard are to be granted on a ``temporary basis,'' \4\ the
statute also expressly provides for renewal of an exemption on
reapplication. Manufacturers are nevertheless cautioned that the
agency's decision to grant an initial petition in no way predetermines
that the agency will repeatedly grant renewal petitions, thereby
imparting semi-permanent exemption from a safety standard. Exempted
manufacturers seeking renewal must bear in mind that the agency is
directed to consider financial hardship as but one factor, along with
the manufacturer's on-going good faith efforts to comply with the
regulation, the public interest, consistency with the Safety Act,
generally, as well as other such matters provided in the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Wheego's Petition

    Wheego submitted a petition for exemption from certain requirements
of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, the petition
requests an exemption from paragraphs S14, S15, S16, S17, S18, S19,
S21, S23, S25, S26, and S27 of FMVSS No. 208, which relate to the
advanced air bag requirements. Wheego has requested an exemption for
the Wheego Whip LiFe (LiFe) model, an all-electric ``full speed'' car,
and that the exemption period run for three years. Wheego requests an
exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i) and 49 CFR
555.6(a).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Wheego has not requested a two-year exemption for the
development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle under 49
U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii) and 49 CFR 555.6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for Wheego's application is substantial economic hardship
to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the
standard. According to the petition, Wheego is a privately held company
incorporated in the State of Delaware, with headquarters in Atlanta,
Georgia. Its total motor vehicle production during the 12 months
preceding the filing of the petition was 308 vehicles. Wheego indicated
that all of these vehicles were all-electric Wheego Whip LSVs (low
speed vehicles). In order for a vehicle to qualify as a low speed
vehicle under FMVSS No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles, its top speed must not
exceed 25 miles per hour.
    Wheego states that the LiFe is based on a high strength steel
unibody chassis made by Shijiazhuan ShuangHuan Automobile Co.
(ShuangHuan) in China. ShuangHuan manufactures a passenger car (called
the ``Noble'') with the chassis and an internal combustion engine for
sale in China, Australia, Greece, and other parts of the world outside
the United States. Wheego states that, by purchasing and using an
existing chassis, it was able to avoid the high cost of developing and
manufacturing a brand new vehicle design. Wheego also states that
ShuangHuan has developed dual standard air bags for the chassis, but
not an advanced air bag system.
    Wheego contends that granting an exemption would be in the public
interest. Wheego intends the LiFe to be ``one of the first affordable
electric cars available in the United States.'' Wheego states that
electric vehicles have several benefits including reducing the nation's
reliance on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gas and other
emissions. Wheego also contends that, allowing it to enter the market
now would contribute to the development of electric vehicles in general
by helping to evaluate the market and performance of electric vehicles
with real world experience. Wheego also cites employment opportunities
as a benefit.
    Wheego intends to produce only a limited number of LiFes in the
first three years of production, which it contends would limit the
overall impact on motor vehicle safety. Wheego projects selling 550
LiFes in 2010, 1,200 in 2011, 2,400 in 2012, and 5,000 in 2013. Wheego
states that the primary purpose of the LiFe will be as a commuter
vehicle because it will have a limited range compared to that of
gasoline powered vehicles. The LiFe will have a projected range of 100
miles and will require a minimum of 5 hours to regain a 50 percent
charge. Because of the small sales volume and limited range, Wheego
states that the number of hours the LiFe will be on roads will be lower
compared to a gasoline powered vehicle, thereby reducing the likelihood
of a crash.
    Wheego contends that compliance with the advanced air bag
requirements would cause substantial economic hardship and that Wheego
has tried to comply with the standard in good faith. Wheego states that
it cannot acquire an off-the-shelf advanced air bag system for the LiFe
because an advanced air bag system has never been developed for the
chassis used in the LiFe. Wheego states that it does not have the
technical or financial resources to develop such a system independently
and would have to cancel the development of a passenger car and
terminate its operations if it does not obtain the requested exemption.
    In October 2009, Wheego engaged J.K. Technologies in Baltimore,
Maryland, for help with testing and certification requirements of the
FMVSSs. Also in October 2009, Wheego approached TASS Engineering
Services and Bosch for help in developing an advanced air bag system
for the LiFe. Based upon this consultation, Wheego estimates that an
advanced air bag system would cost $3 million and would take 18 months
to test and implement. Wheego intends to spend $1 million in each of
2011, 2012, and 2013 in an effort to develop a system that will comply
with the advanced air bag requirements. Wheego states that based on its
projected revenues, by the end of the third year of an exemption,
Wheego should be able to build cars with advanced air bags at no
additional cost.
    One issue raised by Wheego's petition is whether ShuangHuan might
also be considered a manufacturer of the vehicle, given the
relationship between Wheego and ShuangHuan. As indicated above,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30113, in order to be eligible for exemption, a
manufacturer must not have produced more than 10,000 vehicles in the
previous year. While Wheego by itself would meet this requirement,
NHTSA must consider whether ShuangHuan could also be considered a
manufacturer of the LiFe.
    If ShuangHuan were also considered to be a manufacturer, there
would be issues of whether we should consider one or both companies
with respect to

the 10,000 vehicle limitation for eligibility, hardship, good faith
efforts, etc. We note, for example, that we have in the past cited the
possible situation of large manufacturers potentially avoiding the
statutory 10,000 vehicle limit by engaging in joint ventures with small
companies and having the small company submit the petition.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See grant of petition to Tesla Motors, Inc., 73 FR 4944,
4948 (Jan. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wheego uses the chassis of the ShuangHuan Noble for its vehicle.
However, we have no knowledge of the modifications Wheego makes to the
vehicles other than to install an electric powertrain in the vehicle.
We have little knowledge of whether Wheego makes changes to the design
of the ShuangHuan Noble to bring it into compliance with U.S. standards
or whether ShuangHuan is making the modifications. Wheego states that
it has spent the majority of its time and resources developing the
LiFe's safety features, including the seat belt requirements. However,
Wheego also states that the standard air bags have been developed by
ShuangHuan.
    We have found articles on Wheego's Web site stating that Wheego and
ShuangHuan are entering into a ``partnership'' to produce electric
vehicles. Wheego's Web site also states that ShuangHuan would
manufacture an electric vehicle similar to the LiFe, called the E-
Noble, to sell outside of the United States.\7\ Also, the Web site of
ShuangHuan includes, at the top right of its home page (English
language),\8\ a box titled ``Electric Noble in USA'' with a picture of
the vehicle. Clicking on the box brings up the Wheego Web site. This
linkage suggests that the E-Noble and LiFe are very similar vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Wheego and ShuangHuan Automobile Announce Electric Car
Partnership, available at http://wheego.net/more/2008/11/19/rtev-
and-shuanghuan-automobile-announce-electric-car-partnership-2/ (last
accessed July 27, 2010); Wheego Electric Cars and Shuanghuan
Automobile Form EV Partnership, available at http://wheego.net/more/
2008/11/20/rtev-and-shuanghuan-automobile-form-ev-partnership/ (last
accessed July 27, 2010); Wheego, Shuanghuan Auto Plan 2-Seater
Electric Car for '09, available at http://wheego.net/more/2008/11/
20/rtev-shuanghuan-auto-plan-2-seater-electric-car-for-%E2%80%9809/
(last accessed July 27, 2010). A copy of these articles has been
included in the docket.
    \8\ See http://www.hbshauto.com/en/ (last accessed July 28,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the nature of the LiFe and the relationship between
ShuangHuan and Wheego, NHTSA will closely examine whether Wheego is
eligible for a financial hardship exemption for this vehicle. NHTSA
specifically requests comments on this issue.
    Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition with respect to whether the petition is complete and whether
the petitioner appears to be eligible to apply for the requested
petition. The agency has tentatively concluded that the petition is
complete. The agency has not made any judgment on the eligibility of
the petitioner or the merits of the application, and is placing a non-
confidential copy of the petition in the docket.
    We are providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public
comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of
final action on the application in the Federal Register.

    Issued on: August 17, 2010.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-20805 Filed 8-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83657-83660]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5034; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-172-AD;
Amendment 39-18702; AD 2016-22-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design
approval holder (DAH) indicating that lap splices for certain stringers
are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires
repetitive inspections for cracking in the lower fastener row of the
lap splices of certain stringers, and repair if necessary. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 27, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 27,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5034.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5034; 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 address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gaetano Settineri, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6577; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 The Boeing Company
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2016 (81 FR
17415) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the
DAH indicating that the S-14L and S-14R lap splices are subject to WFD.
The NPRM proposed to require repetitive low frequency eddy current
inspections for cracking in the lower fastener row of the S-14L and S-
14R lap splices, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct widespread cracking in the S-14L and S-14R lap
splices that could rapidly link up and result in possible rapid
decompression and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing and a commenter, Jordan Ibsen, supported the content of the
NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental
type certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect compliance with the
actions specified in the NPRM.
    We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the NPRM as (c)(1) and added a new paragraph (c)(2) to this final rule
to state that installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability
to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for
airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a ``change in product''
Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) approval request is not
necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request To Revise Compliance Time

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) noted that Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1352, dated October 2, 2015, specifies that the
existing 737-600/700/800/900 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD),
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitation Instruction (ALI) Inspection
Program, is not sufficient to prevent WFD in the S-14L and S-14R lap
splice, lower fastener rows, between station (STA) 360-540 and STA 727-
887, as the airplane ages. EASA added that this service information
specifies inspections at principal structural elements (PSEs) 53-30-04-
6, 53-30-04-6a, 53-60-04-6 and 53-60-04-6a before accumulating 54,000
total flight cycles. However, EASA noted that 737-600/700/800/900 MPD,
Section 9, C626AOO 1-CMR Table 9-2, Revision August 2012, requires
doing the inspections before accumulating 50,000 flight cycles; which
contradicts the initial statement that the ALI inspection program is
not sufficient to preclude WFD. EASA concluded that if the current ALI
is not sufficient to preclude WFD, then the 50,000 flight cycles should
be reduced, rather than increased to 54,000 flight cycles.
    We infer the commenter is requesting that we reduce the 54,000
flight-cycle compliance time specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1352, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2016 (which is the appropriate
source of service information for accomplishing the required actions in
this AD). We do not agree with the request to reduce the compliance
time. However, we do agree to clarify the WFD analysis. Boeing uses a
different methodology than the standard damage tolerance analysis for
evaluating structure that is susceptible to WFD. This methodology can
sometimes produce a longer initial inspection threshold than the
baseline maintenance program, but requires more frequent repetitive
inspections, as in the case of the S-14L and S-14R lap splices.
Although, for certain airplanes, the initial WFD threshold specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352, Revision 1, dated March 10,
2016, is 4,000 flight cycles more than the ALI threshold; the
repetitive inspection interval is reduced by 6,000 flight cycles.
    Operators are still required to accomplish the ALI inspections in
accordance with 14 CFR 91.403(c). However, if the inspections specified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352, Revision 1, dated March
10, 2016, and the ALI inspections overlap (same location, inspection
detail, and technique) then the more restrictive of the two programs
satisfies both requirements. Since a specific revision of the ALI
inspections are required by AD 2013-19-23, Amendment 39-17605 (78 FR
61173, October 3, 2013), Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352,
Revision 1, dated March 10, 2016, contains an approved AMOC to AD 2013-
19-23, for certain PSEs, after the initial inspections in that service
bulletin are accomplished. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request for Clarification of Extent of Boeing Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA)

    Southwest Airlines (SWA) asked for clarification that the Boeing
ODA identified in paragraph (i)(3) of the proposed AD can provide an
AMOC for any ``repair, modification, or alteration'' that includes the
authority to approve existing repairs in the inspection area that
inhibit accomplishment of the AD requirements as terminating action to
paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. SWA also asked if the ODA has the
authority to provide alternative inspection procedures for repaired
areas where the inspection in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD cannot
be accomplished. Additionally, SWA asked that we clarify that the
Boeing ODA identified in paragraph (i)(3) of the proposed AD is able to
issue an AMOC for an existing repair at the S-14 lap joint (where the
location of the repair inhibits accomplishing the initial inspection),
provided the repair was approved by any FAA designation authority and
there are a minimum of three fastener rows above and below the lap
joint. SWA stated that neither Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1352, dated October 2, 2015, nor the NPRM clearly state how to
address existing repairs that prevent accomplishment of the inspections
specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.
    We agree with the commenter that clarification of the extent of the
authority of the Boeing ODA is necessary. The Boeing ODA includes the
authority to evaluate existing repairs and provide alternative
inspection programs in the repaired area, and includes approval of
alternative inspections as AMOCs if accomplishment of the inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD is inhibited. We have not changed
this AD in this regard.

    We infer that SWA is asking if the Boeing ODA can issue a global
AMOC for the referenced repair. The Boeing ODA does not have that
authority. We have not received any information from Boeing that
defines such a repair that would be considered for a global AMOC. If
Boeing provides supporting data, we will evaluate the data to determine
if that repair and any associated inspections provide an acceptable
level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Change to This AD

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352,
Revision 1, dated March 10, 2016, and there are no substantial changes.
Therefore, we have included Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352,
Revision 1, dated March 10, 2016, as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing in the actions required by paragraph (g)
of this AD. We have also added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to
provide credit for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD
using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352, dated October 2, 2015.
We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352, Revision 1,
dated March 10, 2016. The service information describes procedures for
low frequency eddy current inspections and repair for cracking in the
lower fastener row of the S-14L and S-14R lap splices. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,513 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for Group 1 airplanes   84 work-hours x $85              $0  $7,140 per           $10,502,940 per
 (1,471 airplanes).                 per hour = $7,140                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Inspection for Group 2 airplanes   65 work-hours x $85               0  $5,525 per           $232,050 per
 (42 airplanes).                    per hour = $5,525                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

    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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2016-22-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18702; Docket No. FAA-
2016-5034; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-172-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 27, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -
700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/38B606833BBD98B386257FAA00602538?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00830se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC

ST00830SE is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method
of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply
with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the stringer (S)-14L and S-14R lap
splices are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct widespread cracking in the S-
14L and S-14R lap splices that could rapidly link up and result in
possible rapid decompression and reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352,
Revision 1, dated March 10, 2016, do a low frequency eddy current
inspection for cracking of the lower fastener row of S-14L and S-14R
lap splices, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352, Revision 1, dated March
10, 2016. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1352, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2016. If any
cracking is found, before further flight, repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1352, dated October 2, 2015.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Gaetano Settineri,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1352, Revision 1, dated
March 10, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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 October 21, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26621 Filed 11-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36503-36504]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-941-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Rate Case (RP13-941) Refund Report Filing.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 23, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15068 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61619-61621]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0509]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; IJSBA World Finals, Lower Colorado River, Lake
Havasu, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of Lake Havasu on the lower Colorado River in Arizona
in support of the International Jet Sports Boating Association (IJSBA)
World Finals. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for
the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating
vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and
vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this temporary safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port San Diego or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR on October 6, 2010 through
October 10, 2010. This rule is effective with actual notice for
purposes of enforcement on October 3, 2010. This rule will remain in
effect until October 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2010-0509 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0509 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Shane Jackson, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego Coast Guard; telephone
619-278-7267, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On July 6, 2010, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; IJSBA World Finals in the Federal Register
(75 FR 38754). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public
meeting was requested, and none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The boat races will begin on
October 3, 2010, and a safety zone is necessary to protect the
participants and spectators. Therefore it would be impracticable to
delay the effective date of the final rule.

Basis and Purpose

    The International Jet Sports Boating Association (IJSBA) is
sponsoring the IJSBA World Finals. The event will consist of 300 to 750
personal watercrafts racing in a circular course. The race will be
broken down into heats of one to 20. The sponsor will provide five
course marshals and rescue vessels, as well as four perimeter safety
boats for the duration of this event. This safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators,
participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard published an NPRM on July 6, 2010, proposing to
establish a temporary safety zone on Lake Havasu from October 3 through
October 10, 2010. We received no comments, and therefore we are
establishing the safety zone as proposed in the NPRM.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This
determination is based on the size and location of the

safety zone. This safety zone will be in effect for only one week, and
will only be enforced during certain hours each day. Furthermore,
vessels can transit safely around the safety zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the lower Colorado River at Lake Havasu from
October 3, 2010 through October 10, 2010.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel
traffic can pass safely around the zone. Before the effective period,
the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM).

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a new temporary Sec.  165.T11-182 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-182  Safety Zone; IJSBA World Finals; Lower Colorado
River, Lake Havasu, AZ.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
Lake Havasu, from surface to bottom, encompassed by lines connecting
the following points: Beginning at 34[deg]28.49[min] N,
114[deg]21.33[min] W; thence to 34[deg]28.55[min] N, 114[deg]21.56[min]
W; thence to 34[deg]28.43[min] N, 114[deg]21.81[min] W; thence to
34[deg]28.32[min] N, 114[deg]21.71[min] W; thence along the shoreline
returning to 34[deg]28.49[min] N, 114[deg]21.33[min] W.
    These coordinates are based upon NAD 83.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from sunrise
to sunset on October 3, 2010 through October 10, 2010. If the
International Jet Sports Boating Association World Finals concludes
prior to the scheduled termination of the effective period, the Captain
of the Port will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will
announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative means any Commissioned, Warrant, or Petty
Officers of the Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary, and local, state,
and federal law enforcement officers who have been authorized to act on
the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port San Diego or
his designated representative.
    (2) Mariners desiring to enter or operate in the safety zone may
request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The
PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
must proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: September 17, 2010.
P.J. Hill,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2010-25193 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM

To:		OSWRO Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360) From:		Paula Hirtz, Refining and Chemicals Group        Terri Hollingsworth, Air Toxics Assessment Group       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  CC:		Penny Lassiter, Leader, Refining and Chemicals Group        Kelly Rimer, Leader, Air Toxics Assessment Group	 Date:		January 9, 2015 Subject:	Additional Facilities Identified During the OSWRO Comment Period --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA received information during the comment period on the proposed amendments to the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations (OSWRO) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) identifying four sources that are subject to the OSWRO NESHAP but were not included in the risk assessment supporting the proposal. These facilities are E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company in Orange, Texas; E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company in Axis, Alabama; Eastman Chemical Company in Longview, Texas; and Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport, Tennessee. Three of the facilities manufacture chemicals and chemical intermediates, and the fourth facility located in Axis, Alabama manufactures pesticides. We also reviewed the Title V permits for these facilities, and we confirmed they are subject to OSWRO NESHAP and will therefore be affected by the new requirements of the OSWRO NESHAP amendments.

In evaluating and developing standards under section 112(f)(2), the EPA applies a two-step process to address residual risk. In the first step, we determine whether risks are acceptable, and in the second step of the process, we consider whether the emission standards provide an ample margin of safety. To determine whether to conduct additional risk modeling for the newly identified OSWRO facilities, we first considered whether risk acceptability and ample margin of safety for the OSWRO source category, including the four additional facilities, could be determined using existing information. The existing information available to the EPA includes previously conducted OSWRO source category modeling results, facility-wide modeling results conducted for these facilities in our evaluations of risks due to emissions from other source categories, Title V permits and information obtained through discussions with facility representatives. We determined that OSWRO source-category specific modeling would be conducted for these facilities if facility-wide risks were near levels considered unacceptable and OSWRO operations constituted a majority of those emissions. However, we also determined that if either the facility-wide risks were not near levels considered unacceptable or if OSWRO emissions did not constitute a majority of emissions causing risks near levels considered unacceptable, additional modeling would not be necessary.

The EPA contacted representatives at these companies who indicated that these facilities are primarily chemical and pesticide manufacturing plants. In addition to the manufacturing operations, the three chemical manufacturing plants also process limited volumes of company-generated off-spec or contaminated product as off-site waste. Company representatives stated that these facilities, as manufacturers, do not commercially accept or process off-site waste from other companies. The pesticide manufacturing plant processes a limited amount of off-site waste with a VOHAP concentration below the OSWRO 500ppmw threshold from a single adjacent company. Email correspondence with these company representatives is included in the docket for this rulemaking. Consistent with our findings at proposal, we expect emissions from the OSWRO source category to make only a small contribution to facility-wide risks at manufacturing facilities and to contribute more significantly to facility-wide risks at facilities that commercially accept off-site waste, such as hazardous waste treatment facilities and cement manufacturing facilities. The results of modeling conducted prior to the OSWRO proposal indicated that seven of the 38 modeled facilities had an OSWRO source category contribution of 50 percent or more to facility-wide risk. Five of these facilities were hazardous waste treatment facilities and two were cement manufacturing facilities. Considering these modeling results, we expect the OSWRO contribution to facility-wide risk to be less than 50 percent at the additional facilities, which do not commercially accept off-site waste.

These four facilities also contain sources that are subject to other NESHAP.  As such, the EPA previously modeled the facility-wide risks for these four facilities as part of the risk reviews for the other NESHAP. The EPA modeled these facility-wide risks in the "Residual Risk Assessment for 7 Source Categories: Printing and Publishing, Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, Pharmaceuticals Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers, Polybutadiene Rubber, Styrene Butadiene, Nitrile Butadiene" promulgated in January 2011 and the "Residual Risk Assessment for 7 Source Categories: Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, Polyether Polyols Production, Polymers and Resins IV -- Styrene Acrylonitrile, Polymers and Resins IV  -  Polystyrene, Polymers and Resins IV  -  Polyethylene Terephthalate, Polymers and Resins IV -- Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene Styrene, Polymers and Resins IV -- Acrylic Butadiene Styrene" promulgated in January 2014.  A review of the risk assessment results for these facilities indicate that the maximum facility-wide cancer risks due to emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) range from 6-in-1 million to 40-in-1 million. These risks are relatively low when compared to the upper end of the range of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide non-cancer risks due to HAP emissions range from 0.08 to 1. In addition, the results show that the facility-wide cancer and non-cancer risks are attributed to HAP emissions from non-OSWRO processes. As discussed above, OSWRO processes are minor operations at these facilities, and it is reasonable to conclude that risks due to OSWRO processes at these facilities would be well below these facility-wide risk values and would likely be similar to or less than the previously modeled maximum risks for the OSWRO source category. See Table 1 below for the facility-wide risk results for each facility.

To further consider whether to conduct additional risk modeling for these facilities, we compared the previously modeled facility-wide emissions, which were based on the emissions and emissions release characteristics contained in the 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), to current facility-wide emissions, which are based on the 2011 NEI, for the HAP driving both cancer and non-cancer risks. The results of this comparison show that all four facilities experienced a net decrease in risk-driving HAP emissions (see Table 2 below).  Company representatives indicated that these decreases are attributable to new product raw material changes and reduction in HAP in a HAP-containing waste stream. We therefore expect the current facility-wide risks for these facilities to be lower than the previously modeled risk values presented in Table 1. This emissions comparison further supports our expectation that risks from the OSRWO source category at these facilities are well below the level that we generally deem acceptable.

As the facility-wide risks at these four additional facilities are relatively low, the OSWRO operations are not the predominant activity at the facilities and are not expected to contribute significantly to the facility-wide risk, and the current emissions for the HAP driving cancer and non-cancer risk at each of these facilities is lower than when previously modeled, we determined that additional modeling to include these facilities is not necessary. Based on this information, we have also concluded that the risks from these four facilities do not change our decision regarding risk acceptability for the OSWRO source category. Further, it was determined at proposal that the amended NESHAP, including the proposed revisions to the tank and equipment leak standards, provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The modeling results for the OSWRO source category conducted prior to proposal of the NESHAP amendments showed that maximum cancer risks were 9-in-1 million and the maximum non-cancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) was 0.6, based on actual emissions. The projected OSWRO source category risks for these facilities are similar to or less than these risk values, and the information regarding the risks from these four facilities does not change our conclusions, presented for comment in the July 2, 2014 federal register notice, regarding the ample margin of safety for the OSWRO source category.

Table 1. Facility - wide Risk for Facilities Identified during the Comment Period                                                                            Facility                                                                            Location                                                                           Cancer MIR                                 1 in a million                                                                        Non-Cancer TOSHI                                                      Source Categories Driving Cancer and Non-Cancer Risk                                                                             Source DuPont Orange, TX                                      40[a]                                       0.9 Boilers Previous RTR modeling  Marine Tank Vessel Loading DuPont  Axis, AL                                        6                                      0.08 Pesticide Active Ingredient Previous RTR modeling Pesticide Active Ingredient Eastman Chemical Company Longview, TX                                       30                                       0.7 Hazardous Organic NESHAP, Polyether Polyols, Hazardous Waste Incineration Previous RTR modeling Polyether Polyols[2] Eastman Chemical Company Kingsport, TN                                       10                                        1 Hazardous Waste Incineration Previous RTR modeling Polyethylene Terephthalate in Polymer & Resins IV[2]  a As shown in Table 2, the facility-wide nickel emissions modeled in the Marine Tank Vessel Loading RTR are more than 2 orders of magnitude higher than current nickel emissions from the facility, and both the cancer and non-cancer risks from nickel would be significantly lower if additional modeling were performed.    Table 2. Comparison of Previously Modeled Emissions vs Current Emissions                                                                       Facility, Location                                         HAP Driving Cancer Risk                                    Emissions                                 (tons per year)                                         HAP Driving    Non-Cancer Risk                                    Emissions                                 (tons per year)

                                                                                Modeled                                                                             Current                                    % change                                                                                Modeled                                                                             Current                                    % change DuPont, Orange, TX nickel 1.95 0.0034 -100 nickel 1.95 0.0034 -100 DuPont, Axis AL hydrazine 0.009 0 -100 chlorine 0.13 0 -100

hydrogen chloride 65.8 20.1 -69 Eastman Chemical Company, Longview, TX naphthalene 6.01 11.0 +45 chlorine 5.81 2.47 -57

ethylene oxide  9.93 8.25 -17 maleic anhydride 4.02 0 -100

benzene 27.4 8.89 -68 propionaldehyde 31.1 15.2 -51

1,3-butadiene 4.20 5.25 +20

Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport, TN arsenic  0.359 0.331 -8 chlorine 19.5 11.2 -43

chromium (VI) 0.0973 0.0156 -84 hydrogen chloride 1200 355 -70

acetaldehyde 32.5 38.5 +16 antimony 2.81 0.0154 -99


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12430-12431]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05645]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82885; File No. 4-533]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Amendment to the National Market System Plan for the Selection and
Reservation of Securities Symbols To Add Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC as a Party Thereto

March 15, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 26, 2018, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') an amendment to the National Market System
Plan for the Selection and Reservation of Securities Symbols
(``Symbology Plan'' or ``Plan'').\3\ The amendment proposes to add MIAX
as a party to the Symbology Plan. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed amendment from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On November 6, 2008, the Commission approved the Symbology
Plan that was originally proposed by the Chicago Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``CHX''), The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (n/k/a The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC) (``Nasdaq''), National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') (n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'')), National Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NSX'') (n/k/a NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'')), and
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a Nasdaq PHLX LLC
(``Phlx'')), subject to certain changes. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 58904, 73 FR 67218 (November 13, 2008) (File No. 4-533).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Amendment

    The current parties to the Symbology Plan are BOX Options Exchange,
LLC (``BOX''), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``CboeBZX''), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``CboeEDGA''), Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``CboeEDGX''), Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe''), CHX,
FINRA, Investors Exchange, LLC (``IEX''), Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE''),
Nasdaq, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE American LLC
(``NYSE American''), NYSE National, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''),
and Phlx.\4\ The proposed amendment to the Symbology Plan would add
MIAX as a party to the Symbology Plan. A self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') may become a party to the Symbology Plan if it satisfies the
requirements of Section I(c) of the Plan. Specifically, an SRO may
become a party to the Symbology Plan if: (i) It maintains a market for
the listing or trading of Plan Securities \5\ in accordance with rules
approved by the Commission; (ii) it signs a current copy of the Plan;
and (iii) it pays to the other parties a proportionate share of the
aggregate development costs, based upon the number of symbols reserved
by the new party during the first twelve (12) months of such party's
membership.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On November 18, 2008, ISE filed with the Commission an
amendment to the Plan to add ISE as a member to the Plan. See
Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 59024 (November 26, 2008),
73 FR 74538 (December 8, 2008) (File No. 4-533). On December 22,
2008, NYSE, NYSE Arca, and NYSE Alternext (n/k/a NYSE American)
(``NYSE Group Exchanges''), and Cboe filed with the Commission
amendments to the Plan to add the NYSE Group Exchanges and Cboe as
members to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59162
(December 24, 2008), 74 FR 132 (January 2, 2009) (File No. 4-533).
On December 24, 2008, BSE (n/k/a BX) filed with the Commission an
amendment to the Plan to add BSE as a member to the Plan. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59187 (December 30, 2008), 74 FR
729 (January 7, 2009) (File No. 4-533). On September 30, 2009, BATS
(n/k/a CboeBZX) filed with the Commission an amendment to the Plan
to add BATS as a member to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60856 (October 21, 2009), 74 FR 55276 (October 27, 2009)
(File No. 4-533). On July 7, 2010, EDGA (n/k/a CboeEDGA) and EDGX
(n/k/a CboeEDGX) filed with the Commission an amendment to the Plan
to add EDGA and EDGX, each as a party to the Symbology Plan. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62573 (July 26, 2010), 75 FR
45682 (August 3, 2010) (File No. 4-533). On May 7, 2012, BOX filed
with the Commission an amendment to the Plan to add BOX as a member
to the Plan. See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 66957 (May
10, 2012), 77 FR 28904 (May 16, 2012). On November 4, 2016, IEX
filed with the Commission an amendment to the Plan to add IEX as a
member to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79422
(November 29, 2016), 81 FR 87645 (December 5, 2016).
    \5\ ``Plan Securities'' are defined in the Symbology Plan as
securities that: (i) Are NMS securities as currently defined in Rule
600(a)(46) under the Act; and (ii) any other equity securities
quoted, traded and/or trade reported through an SRO facility.
    \6\ Sections I(c) and V(a) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX has submitted a signed copy of the Symbology Plan to the
Commission in accordance with the requirement set forth in the
Symbology Plan regarding new parties to the plan. Additionally, MIAX
has represented that it maintains a market for the listing or trading
of Plan Securities. Finally, MIAX has agreed to pay all costs required
by MIAX pursuant to the Symbology Plan, including its proportionate
share of the aggregate development costs previously paid by the other
parties to the Processor.

II. Effectiveness of the Proposed Symbology Plan Amendment

    The foregoing proposed Symbology Plan amendment has become
effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) \7\ because it involves
solely technical or

ministerial matters. At any time within sixty days of the filing of the
amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment and
require that it be refiled pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 608,\8\
if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to,
and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number 4-533 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-533. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the Plan that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the Plan between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
Parties' principal offices. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-533,
and should be submitted on or before April 11, 2018.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05645 Filed 3-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 66359-66361]
[DOCID:fr14no06-64]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54713; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Amendment of
NYSE Rule 300 Relating to Trading Licenses and the Deletion of NYSE
Rule 300T

November 6, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 3, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which items have been prepared by NYSE. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 300 relating to trading

licenses to charge a fixed price of $50,000 for calendar year 2007
trading licenses that are purchased during the 2006 offering period,
rather than using an auction to determine the trading license price as
was done for calendar year 2006. The Exchange is also proposing to
modify the fee relating to the approval of any new member or pre-
qualified substitute. The Exchange is also deleting NYSE Rule 300T,
which is no longer necessary.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on NYSE's Web
site at http: //http://www.nyse.com, at NYSE's principal office, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 300 relating to trading
licenses to charge a fixed price of $50,000 for calendar year 2007
trading licenses that are purchased during the 2006 offering period,
rather than using an auction to determine the trading license price as
was done for calendar year 2006. The Exchange is also proposing to
modify the fee relating to the approval of any new member or pre-
qualified substitute. The Exchange is also deleting NYSE Rule 300T,
which is no longer necessary.
    The auction process used in anticipation of the merger between New
York Stock Exchange, Inc. and Archipelago Holdings, Inc. in March 2006
produced a trading license price of $49,290. The Exchange believes that
this is evidence that a $50,000 annual fee for a trading license is
fair and reasonable. The Exchange believes that moving to a fixed price
for trading licenses will also simplify the process under which member
organizations obtain trading licenses, and that certainty regarding the
price for a trading license will be a benefit to both its member
organizations and the Exchange.
    Because there will be no chance of an unexpectedly high purchase
price, as was the case when the price was set by auction, the Exchange
believes that there is no need to provide for a re-pricing if fewer
than 1,000 trading licenses are applied for. The Exchange also notes
that since 1,279 trading licenses were purchased last year at $49,290,
there is no reason to believe that a price of $50,000 would
substantially reduce the number of trading licenses sold for calendar
year 2007.
    Nonetheless, to insure fairness in the allocation of trading
licenses among those desiring them, the Exchange will retain certain
restrictions imposed this past year. Accordingly, member organizations
would initially be limited to applying for a number of licenses equal
to the greater of 35 or 125% of the number of trading licenses they
used in 2006. So that member organizations would not be affected by
end-of-year fluctuations in the number of licenses held, the 125% will
be calculated with reference to the greatest number of licenses held by
the member organization during calendar year 2006. For example, if a
member organization had, at its highest point in 2006, 36 trading
licenses issued to it, the member organization would be entitled to
apply for 45 trading licenses for 2007, even if at the time of the 2006
offering period, the member organization only held 32 trading licenses.
In no event would the total number of trading licenses issued by the
Exchange exceed 1,366, and if in the offering more than 1,366 licenses
are applied for, the Exchange would allow member organizations to
purchase up to the greatest number they used in calendar year 2006,
with the additional trading licenses up to 1,366 apportioned among
interested member organizations by lottery.
    Since there is no longer a need to encourage participation in an
auction, the Exchange would eliminate the requirement that trading
licenses purchased after the annual offering pay a 10% premium. As was
the case this year, the purchase price for all trading licenses would
be paid in monthly installments, and early terminations would pay a
termination fee equal to one month's installment of the purchase price.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify the fee relating to the
approval of any new member or pre-qualified substitute. Currently, the
Exchange charges a fee of $1,000 for the approval of new trading
license holders or pre-qualified substitutes. The fee does not apply to
current trading license holders who are approved for trading floor
access. Based on its experience with the administration of the approval
process during 2006, the Exchange proposes to increase this fee from
$1,000 to $5,000. The Exchange believes that the increase is
appropriate to defray the administrative expenses associated with the
approval of new members and pre-qualified substitutes, and notes that
it is in line with the $5,000 fee the Exchange charged prior to the
merger for transfers of memberships.
    Finally, the Exchange is eliminating NYSE Rule 300T, which was
needed only with respect to the auction conducted in 2006, the year in
which the merger between New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and Archipelago
Holdings, Inc. occurred.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirement under Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \3\ that a
national securities exchange have rules that provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which NYSE consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NYSE-2006-98 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-98. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2006-98 and should be submitted on or before December 5, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19165 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19025]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2011-0041; OMB No. 1660-0070]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, National Fire Department Census

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use. This notice seeks comments concerning the
use of a form to collect data for the development and continuation of
the National Fire Department Census.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: National Fire Department Census.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0070.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 070-0-0-1, National Fire
Department Census.
    Abstract: This collection seeks to identify fire departments in the
United States to compile and update a database related to their
demographics, capabilities, and activities. The database is used to
guide programmatic decisions and provide information to the public and
the fire service.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: .27 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,342 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $10,539. The estimated annual cost to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services is $0. There
are no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal
government is $85,770.

    Dated: March 22, 2012.
John G. Jenkins, Jr.,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-7565 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-45-P