[Federal Register: November 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 220)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64132-64135]
[DOCID:fr15no07-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28376; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-108-AD;
Amendment 39-15255; AD 2007-23-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F
Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. This AD
requires a one-time inspection of each fuel quantity indication system
(FQIS) wire harness connector for corrosion of the shield-to-backshell
connection, corrosion on the ground jumper, and damage to the ground
jumper; a loop resistance test of each FQIS wire harness; and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from
reports of corrosion of the out-tank wire harness of the spar connector
backshell for the FQIS. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
corrosion of the out-tank wire harness, which could prevent correct
grounding of the lightning shield and result in total loss of the
electrical grounding between the lightning shield and the airplane
structure. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 20, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 20,
2007.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document 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: Philip Sheridan, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model
767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on June 20, 2007 (72 FR 33926). That NPRM proposed
to require a one-time inspection of each fuel quantity indication
system (FQIS) wire harness connector for corrosion of the shield-to-
backshell connection, corrosion on the ground jumper, and damage to the
ground jumper; a loop resistance test of each FQIS wire harness; and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Requests To Revise Compliance Threshold

    Florida West International Airways requests that we revise the
compliance threshold from 48 months to 60 months in order to ``stay
standard with'' the compliance time for Boeing special attention
service bulletins.
    An anonymous private citizen notes that corrosion gets worse over
time, so it is appropriate to give a longer compliance threshold to
newer aircraft. The commenter suggests maintaining the 48-month
threshold for airplanes that have 12 or more years' time-in-service,
and revising the compliance threshold to 16 years from airplane
delivery for airplanes that have less than 12 years' time-in-service.
    We do not agree with the requests to revise the compliance
threshold. In Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-28-0087,
dated February 5, 2007, the manufacturer recommended that the
inspections begin within 48 months after the release of the service
bulletin. Although Boeing might have a standard compliance threshold
for special attention service bulletins, that threshold can change
based upon the nature of a given unsafe condition.
    In addition, the goal of the inspection at the 48-month threshold
is to detect and correct any corrosion in the affected area, and to do
all applicable actions to prevent it from happening in the future.
While it is true that corrosion worsens over time, we consider it
inappropriate to allow airplanes to fly for up to 16 years with the
potential for corrosion to continue to progress in this area.
    In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we
considered the serious nature of the unsafe condition as well as the
recommendations of the manufacturer, the availability of any necessary
repair parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required
inspection within an interval of time that corresponds to the normal
maintenance schedules of most affected operators. In light of these
factors, we have determined that the 48-month initial compliance
threshold, as proposed, is appropriate. We do not find it necessary to
change the AD in this regard. However, under the provisions of
paragraph (g) of the final rule, we will consider requests for
adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to
substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level
of safety.

Request To Revise Note 1 of the NPRM Regarding Cinch Service Bulletin

    Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 of the NPRM and the Relevant
Service Information section of the NPRM to remove the words ``* * * and
replacing the wire harness,'' in reference to the procedures in Cinch
Service Bulletin CN1156-28-02, Revision C, dated July 31, 2006. Boeing
explains that the Cinch service bulletin does not contain information
about replacing the wire harness; that information is in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 767-28-0087.
    Boeing also requests that we remove the date and revision level
from the reference to the Cinch service bulletin. Boeing states that a
date is not appropriate because Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 767-28-0087 does not specify a date when it refers to the
Cinch service bulletin. In addition, Boeing points out that the Cinch
service bulletin could be revised by the time the AD is issued, and the
information would then be out of date.
    We agree with the request to remove the words ``* * * and replacing
the wire harness,'' from Note 1 of the NPRM for the reasons provided.
    We also agree with the request to remove the date and revision
level from the Cinch service bulletin identified in Note 1 of the NPRM.
It is our general practice, as specified by the Office of the Federal
Register, to put a date and revision level (if applicable) on all
documents incorporated by reference into an AD. However, in this case,
the Cinch service bulletin is described only in a note, and therefore
it is not incorporated by reference into the AD. Therefore, it is not
necessary for us to put a date on documents that we refer to only in a
note, though in most cases a date is appropriate or important.
    We have revised Note 1 of the final rule to make the requested
changes. However, since the Relevant Service Information section of the
NPRM does

not reappear in the final rule, no other change to the final rule is
necessary.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously.
We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic
burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 482 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
                Action                    Work hours      Average labor       Cost per  airplane        registered                Fleet cost
                                                          rate per hour                                 airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed inspection..................  1...............              $80  $80......................              202  $16,160
Loop resistance test.................  2 to 3..........              $80  $160 to $240.............              202  $32,320 to $48,480
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2007-23-09 Boeing: Amendment 39-15255. Docket No. FAA-2007-28376;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-108-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective December 20, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F
series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-28-0087, dated
February 5, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of corrosion of the out-tank
wire harness of the spar connector backshell for the fuel quantity
indication system (FQIS). We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct corrosion of the out-tank wire harness, which could prevent
correct grounding of the lightning shield and result in total loss
of the electrical grounding between the lightning shield and the
airplane structure. This condition, in combination with flammable
fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent
loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspection, Test, and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (f) Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, and do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by
accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-28-
0087, dated February 5, 2007. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) A detailed inspection of each FQIS wire harness connector
for corrosion of the shield-to-backshell connection, corrosion on
the ground jumper, and damage to the ground jumper.
    (2) A loop resistance test of each FQIS wire harness.

    Note 1: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-28-0087,
dated February 5, 2007, refers to Cinch Service Bulletin CN1156-28-
02 as an additional source of service information for installing a
backshell and assembly upgrade kit.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-
28-0087, dated

February 5, 2007, to perform the actions that are required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207,
for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington; or 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 November 2, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-21993 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66888-66890]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27212]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68128; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 968NY To
Allow for the Split-Price Priority Provisions To Apply to Open Outcry
Trading of Cabinet Trades

 November 1, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on October 19, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 968NY to allow for the split-
price priority provisions to apply to open outcry trading of cabinet
trades. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 968NY to provide that the
split-price priority provisions in Rule 963NY(f) apply to accommodation
trades (``cabinet trades'') in open outcry.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 963NY(f). Rule 963NY(f) regarding priority on
split-price transaction occurring in open outcry specifically
provides the following: (1) If an ATP Holder purchases (sells) one
or more option contracts of a particular series at a particular
price or prices, the ATP Holder must, at the next lower (higher)
price at which another ATP Holder bids (offers), have priority in
purchasing (selling) up to the equivalent number of option contracts
of the same series that the ATP Holder purchased (sold) at the
higher (lower) price or prices, provided that the ATP Holder's bid
(offer) is made promptly and continuously and that the purchase
(sale) so effected represents the opposite side of a transaction
with the same order or offer (bid) as the earlier purchase or
purchases (sale or sales). This paragraph only applies to
transactions effected in open outcry; (2) If an ATP Holder purchases
(sells) fifty or more option contracts of a particular series at a
particular price or prices, he/she shall, at the next lower (higher)
price have priority in purchasing (selling) up to the equivalent
number of option contracts of the same series that he/she purchased
(sold) at the higher (lower) price or prices, but only if his/her
bid (offer) is made promptly and the purchase (sale) so effected
represents the opposite side of the transaction with the same order
or offer (bid) as the earlier purchase or purchases (sale or sales).
The Exchange may increase the ``minimum qualifying order size''
above 100 contracts for all products. Announcements regarding
changes to the minimum qualifying order size shall be made via an
Exchange Bulletin. This paragraph only applies to transactions
effected in open outcry; (3) If the bids or offers of two or more
ATP Holder are both entitled to priority in accordance with
subsections (1) or (2), it shall be afforded them, insofar as
practicable, on an equal basis.; (4) Except for the provisions set
forth in Rule 963NY(f)(2), the priority afforded by this rule is
effective only insofar as it does not conflict with Customer limit
orders represented in the Consolidated Book. Such orders have
precedence over ATP Holders' orders at a particular price; Customer
limit orders in the Consolidated Book also have precedence over ATP
Holders' orders that are not superior in price by at least the MPV.;
and (5) Floor Brokers are able to achieve split price priority in
accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2) above.
    Example: Market quote is $1.00-1.20, with customer interest in
the book at the offer price. Floor Broker announces a market order
to buy 100 contracts. Market Maker A (``MM-A'') is alone in
responding ``Sell 50 at $1.15 and 50 at $1.20'' (for an equivalent
net price of $1.175).
    Because MM-A is willing to sell contracts at the lower price of
$1.15, MM-A then has priority over all orders in the Book and
trading crowd at the next higher price, in this case 1.20, for an
equal number of contracts. The priority afforded by this provision
allows MM-A to trade ahead of any like priced Customer orders in the
Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ``accommodation'' or ``cabinet'' trade refers to trades in
listed options on the Exchange that are worthless or not

actively traded. Cabinet trading provides a way for market participants
to effect transactions in such options at a minimal cost. Cabinet
trading is conducted in accordance with Rule 968NY Accommodation
Transactions (Cabinet Trades),\5\ which provides that cabinet trading
shall be conducted in accordance with other Exchange rules, except as
otherwise provided in Rule 968NY, and sets forth specific procedures
for engaging in cabinet trading. Pursuant to Rule 968NY(a), the
Exchange designates options issues as eligible for cabinet trading
pursuant to Rule 968NY. Such designations are made pursuant to requests
from market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 968NY currently provides for cabinet transactions to
occur via open outcry at a cabinet price of a $1 per option contract
in any options series open for trading in the Exchange, except that
the Rule is not applicable to trading in option classes
participating in the Penny Pilot Program. Under the procedures, bids
and offers (whether opening or closing a position) at a price of $1
per option contract may be represented in the trading crowd by a
Floor Broker or by a Market Maker or provided in response to a
request by a Trading Official, a Floor Broker or a Market Maker, but
must yield priority to all resting orders in the Cabinet (those
orders held by the Trading Official, and which resting cabinet
orders may be closing only). So long as both the buyer and the
seller yield to orders resting in the cabinet book, opening cabinet
bids can trade with opening cabinet offers at $1 per option
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2009, NYSE Amex adopted a new rule set governing the
trading of options.\6\ Much of the new rule set was based on the rules
of NYSE Arca Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). In conjunction with the filing of
the new rule set, the Exchange filed a separate proposal deleting many
out-of-date and/or obsolete rules.\7\ Included as part of this filing
was the deletion of former American Stock Exchange Rule 959-
Accommodation Transactions, which contained provisions governing both
cabinet trading and position transfers. However, when filing the new
rule set the Exchange inadvertently failed to include new rules
governing cabinet trading. In July, 2009, the Exchange added a new rule
governing trading of cabinet orders.\8\ Instead of copying the cabinet
trading rules of Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'') or NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX''), the Exchange chose to
copy-cat the language of the existing NYSE Arca cabinet trade rule,
which included a restriction that prevented the application of the
split-price priority provisions to manual cabinet trading. In contrast,
neither CBOE nor PHLX have a similar restriction on cabinet trades, and
allow for split-price priority for cabinet trades on the trading
floor.\9\ The Exchange did not understand the implication of not
choosing to copy the cabinet trading rules of CBOE or PHLX at that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59472 (February 27,
2009), 74 FR 9843 (March 6, 2009) (order approving NYSEALTR-2008-14,
as amended).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59454 (February 25,
2009), 74 FR 9461 (March 4, 2009) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of NYSEALTR-2009-17).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60296 (July 13,
2009), 74 FR 35217 (July 20, 2009) (SR-NYSE-Amex-2009-37).
    \9\ See CBOE Rules 6.54 and 6.47; NASDAQ OMX PHLX Rule 1059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the adoption of the present NYSE Amex trading system, all
cabinet trading on the NYSE Amex was done on a manual basis. Therefore,
previous Amex Stock Exchange Rule 959(a) dealt only with cabinet
trading in open outcry. However, current Rule 968NY provides for both
manual and electronic cabinet trading--with manual cabinet trading
pursuant to Rule 968NY(b) and electronic cabinet trading pursuant to
Rule 968NY(c). Rule 968NY(b)(3) expressly provides that the split-price
priority provisions otherwise applicable to open outcry trading
pursuant to Rule 963NY(f) do not apply to open outcry trading in
cabinet trades.\10\ Because split-price priority provisions are only
applicable to open outcry trading, Rule 968NY(c), which governs
electronic trading of cabinet trading, does not include this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This limitation did not exist in the previous American
Stock Exchange Rule Amex 959(a) that dealt only with cabinet trading
in open outcry. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59454
(February 25, 2009), 74 FR 9461 (March 4, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-
17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that split-price priority provisions should
apply to open outcry cabinet trading, and that the existing restriction
unnecessarily limits the ability of market participants to manually
trade cabinet orders on the floor. The current restriction
unnecessarily restricts business by not making available certain prices
which are available on other exchanges. Split-price priority in open
outcry trading of cabinet trades provides an extra incentive for market
participants to both price improve and facilitate the efficient trading
of options contracts that are worthless or not actively trading. The
Exchange notes that neither CBOE nor PHLX have a similar restriction on
cabinet trades, and allow for split-price priority for cabinet trades
on the trading floor.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CBOE Rules 6.54 and 6.47; PHLX Rule 1059. CBOE and PHLX
both conduct their cabinet trading via open out-cry. Split-price
priority is available for open out-cry trading on both CBOE and
PHLX, with no restriction for cabinet trades. In addition, until
March 2009, when the Exchange deleted former American Stock Exchange
(``Amex'') rules that were deemed obsolete, the Exchange permitted
split-price priority for open outcry cabinet trades. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59454 (February 25, 2009), 74 FR 9461
(March 4, 2009) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
NYSEALTR-2009-17) (deleting, in part, Amex Rule 959--Accommodation
Transactions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange therefore proposes to delete the language
from Rule 968NY(b)(3) that states that the split-price priority
provisions of Rule 963NY shall not apply. The Exchange believes that
providing market participants the ability to have split-price priority
when trading cabinet orders in open outcry will help facilitate the
trading of options positions that are worthless or not actively traded.
The Exchange believes that the proposal should lead to more aggressive
quoting by trading crowd participants on the floor, which in turn could
lead to better executions. A trading crowd participant might be willing
to trade at a better price for a portion of an order if they were
assured of trading with the balance of the order at the next price
increment. As a result, Floor Brokers representing orders in the
trading crowd might receive better-priced executions. The Exchange
notes that cabinet trades are infrequent in nature and that, even
though the Exchange Rules provide that cabinet trades may be traded
electronically, the Exchange has not designated any options issues to
trade electronically pursuant to Rule 968NY, because market
participants have never requested to do so. Thus, the fact that split-
price priority is available for manual and not electronic, will have no
impact on ongoing electronic cabinet trading.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that allowing for the split-pricing priority
provisions to apply to open outcry trading of cabinet trades will
better facilitate the trading of options contracts that are worthless
or not actively traded. The proposed change is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade,

remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, by aligning the Exchange's Rules
with the rules on other options exchanges that conduct manual cabinet
trading.

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

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-55 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-55.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal offices of NYSE MKT. 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-NYSEMKT-2012-55, and should be submitted
on or before November 28, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27212 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30317-30318]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Science Board to the Food and Drug Administration; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Science Board to the Food and Drug
Administration (Science Board).
    General Function of the Committee: The Science Board provides
advice primarily to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and other
appropriate officials on specific complex scientific and technical
issues important to FDA and its mission, including emerging issues
within the scientific community. Additionally, the Science Board
provides advice to the Agency on keeping pace with technical and
scientific developments including in regulatory science; and input into
the Agency's research agenda; and on upgrading its scientific and
research facilities and training opportunities. It will also provide,
where requested, expert review of Agency sponsored intramural and
extramural scientific research programs.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on Monday, June 24, 2013,
from approximately 1 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.
    Location: Food and Drug Administration, White Oak Bldg. 31, Rm.
1503, section A, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993.
This meeting will be held via teleconference<PHONE_NUMBER> or 866-901-
3913; passcode: 665127) and via Adobe Connect (https://collaboration.fda.gov/scienceboard). Information regarding special
accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation
may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm;
under the heading ``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at
the FDA White Oak Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak
Campus must enter through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Martha Monser, Office of the Chief Scientist,
Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, White Oak
Bldg. 32, Rm. 4286, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,
301-796-4627, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site
at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On June 24, 2013, the Science Board will be provided draft
final reports from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Research Review subcommittee, and the Global Health subcommittee. A
revised charge (initially proposed at the October 3, 2012, Science
Board meeting) regarding a new subcommittee to evaluate the Agency's
continuing work to address the challenges identified in the Science
Board's 2007 ``Science and Mission at Risk'' Report will be presented.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
Monday, June 17, 2013. Oral presentations from the public will be
scheduled between approximately 1:15 p.m. and 1:45 p.m. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
Friday, June 7, 2013. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by Monday,
June 10, 2013.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Martha Monser, at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on

public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-12152 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 78185-78186]
[DOCID:fr28de06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

December 20, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12749-000.
    c. Date Filed: November 2, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Oregon Wave Energy Partners, LLC. P>e. Name of
Project: Coos Bay OPT Wave Park Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located in the Pacific Ocean
about 2.5 miles off shore in Coos County, Oregon.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Charles F. Dunleavy, Oregon Wave Energy
Partners, LLC, 1590 Reed Road, Pennington, NJ 08534, phone: (609)-730-
0400.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of:
(1) 200 to 400 Power Buoys having a total installed capacity of 100
megawatts, (2) a proposed 13.8 kilovolt transmission line; and (3)
appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual
generation of 306.6 gigawatt-hours per-unit per-year, which would be
sold to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'',''COMPETING APPLICATION'' OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for

filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's
representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22229 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45967-45968]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18871]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234; EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044, FRL 9710-1]
RIN 2060-AR62

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and
Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility,
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-
Institutional Steam Generating Units: Notice of Partial Stay

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Partial stay of effectiveness of final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action stays the effectiveness of national new source
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-
fired electric utility steam generating units issued pursuant to Clean
Air Act section 112 that were published in the Federal Register on
February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304).

DATES: The effective date of 40 CFR 63.9984(a), 63.10005(g),
63.10030(c), Table 1 to subpart UUUUU of 40 CFR part 63, and row 2 of
Table 3 to subpart UUUUU of 40 CFR part 63, published in the Federal
Register on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304), is stayed until November 2,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Maxwell, Energy Strategies
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, (D243-01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919)
541-5430; Fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 16, 2012, the EPA issued the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-

and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of
Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional
Steam Generating Units, generally referred to as the mercury and air
toxics standards (MATS Rule), which established emissions standards for
new and existing coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating
units. The EPA received petitions, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of
the Clean Air Act, from a number of interested parties requesting
reconsideration of certain issues in the rule. On July 20, 2012, the
EPA issued a letter, stating its intent to grant the petitions for
reconsideration on certain new source issues related to the emission
standards issued under Clean Air Act section 112, including measurement
issues related to mercury and the data set to which the variability
calculation was applied when establishing the new source standards for
particulate matter and hydrochloric acid.
    The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to stay the effectiveness of a
rule if the Administrator has convened a proceeding to reconsider the
rule. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, ``The effectiveness of the
rule may be stayed during * * * reconsideration * * * by the
Administrator or the court for a period not to exceed three months.''
42 U.S.C.7607(d)(7)(B). In its letter granting the petitions for
reconsideration on certain issues relating to the Clean Air Act section
112 new source standards, the EPA stated that it intended to exercise
its authority under section 307(d) to stay the effectiveness of those
new source standards for 3 months.

II. Issuance of a Partial Stay Relating to Clean Air Act Section 112(d)
New Source Standards

    Pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA
hereby stays the effectiveness of 40 CFR 63.9984(a), 63.10005(g),
63.10030(c), Table 1 in subpart UUUUU of 40 CFR part 63, and row 2 of
Table 3 in subpart UUUUU of 40 CFR part 63 for 3 months. Thus, by this
action, we are staying the effectiveness of these provisions of the
rule, published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2012 (77 FR
9304). Accordingly, this action also stays the effectiveness of any
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements related to the
section 112(d) new source standards. This stay does not apply to any
other provisions of the rule.
    This stay of effectiveness will remain in place until November 2,
2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 27, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-18871 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P