[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80071-80073]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0975]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lake Charles, Lake Charles, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters within a 650-foot radius of a drone flight area at
30[deg]14'0.014'' N, 93[deg]14'43.492'' W, on Lake Charles. This safety
zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from hazards
associated with a drone show. This regulation prohibits persons and
vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 30, 2022, from 8:50 p.m.
through 9:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0975 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Mache Mason, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The NPRM process
would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the drone
show event and compromise public safety. We must establish this
temporary safety zone immediately and lack sufficient time to provide a
reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the rule.
    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. Delaying this rule would be
impracticable because we must establish this safety zone by December
30, 2022 to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the
drone show event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
700034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port (COTP) Port
Arthur has determined that potential hazards associated with the drone
show at this location would be a safety concern for spectator craft and
vessels in the vicinity of the designated flight area location. The
purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable
waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled
event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:50 p.m. through 9:30
p.m. on December 30, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable
waters within a 650-foot radius of a drone flight area located at
30[deg]14'0.014'' N and 93[deg]14'43.492'' W. The duration of the
safety zone is intended to protect participants, spectators, and other
persons and vessels, in the nearby navigable waters during the drone
show.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
and duration of the safety zones. This action involves a drone flight
area at 30[deg]14'0.014'' N and 93[deg]14'43.492'' W, in Lake Charles
on December 30, 2022. This safety zone will be in effect for forty
minutes in a 650-foot radius. This rule would be enforced to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards associated
with the drone show.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. 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.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only forty minutes that will prohibit entry within
a 650-foot radius of a drone flight area. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    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:  46 U.S.C. 700034, 700051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0975 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0975  Safety Zone; Lake Charles, Lake Charles, Louisiana.

    (a) Location. All waters within a 650-foot radius of the drone
flight area at 30[deg]14'0.014'' N and 93[deg]14'43.492'' W, on Lake
Charles on December 30, 2022, from 8:50 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. The
duration of the safety zone is intended to protect participants,
spectators, and other persons and vessels, on the navigable waters of
the Lake Charles during the drone show.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section is effective from 8:50 p.m.
through 9:30 p.m. on December 30, 2022.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry of vessels or persons into the safety
zone described in paragraph

(a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur (COTP) or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control
the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or
signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an
immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so
may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply,
or both.
    (3) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event
or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for
the protection of life or property.
    (4) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate
enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the
event.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the effective period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices
to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs)
as appropriate.

    Dated: December 20, 2022.
M.A. Wike,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port
Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2022-28280 Filed 12-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54346-54349]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21298]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70270; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend
Phlx Rule 910 and Related Phlx Rules

August 27, 2013.
    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 August 14, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 910 (Qualification as
Member Organization) and related Phlx rules. The text of the proposed
rule change is below. Proposed additions are in italics and proposed
deletions are in brackets.
    Rule 900.2. Membership Applications
    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) [If the Membership Department does not approve a membership
application or permit application, the department will notify the
applicant in writing of the specific grounds for denial and the
applicant shall have a right to a hearing. Any appeal from a decision
of the Membership Department shall be heard by a special committee of
the Board of Directors composed of three (3) Directors, of whom at
least one (1) shall be a Public Director. The person requesting review
may appeal by filing a written notice thereof with the Secretary of the
Exchange within ten (10) days after a decision. The person requesting
review shall be permitted to submit a written statement to this special
committee. The Secretary of the Exchange shall certify the record of
the proceeding, if any and the written decision and shall submit these
documents to the special committee. The special committee's review of
the action shall be based solely on the record, the written decision
and any statement submitted by the person requesting the review. The
special committee shall prepare and deliver to such person a written
decision and reasons therefor. If the special committee affirms the
action, the action shall become effective ten (10) days from the date
of the special committee's decision. There shall be no appeal to the
Board of Directors from any decision of the special committee.
    (e)] Absent a showing of good cause, an application filed pursuant
to this Rule shall lapse after a 90 calendar day period if an applicant
fails to provide the requisite documentation provided for in this Rule
or any subsequent written request for information or documents pursuant
to this Rule within such time period agreed to by the Membership
Department. If such time period elapses, an applicant seeking
membership to the Exchange shall be required to file a new application
pursuant to this Rule. The applicant will be required to pay an
additional application fee at that time. The Exchange will not refund
any fees for lapsed applications.
    [(f)] (e) The provisions of this Rule 900.2 shall not apply to a
corporation pursuant to Rule 798.
* * * * *
    Rule 910. Qualification as Member Organization
    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f)(1) To obtain and maintain the status of a member organization,
an organization shall: (i) Be a broker or dealer duly registered under
the Exchange Act; (ii) be duly qualified by a permit holder who is
primarily affiliated with such organization for purposes of nominating
as provided in the By-Laws; (iii) have submitted to the Membership
Department an application for such status in the form approved by the
Membership Department and any other information and materials requested
by the Membership Department; (iv) have had such application approved
by the Membership Department; and (v) meet such other requirements as
are set forth in these By-Laws or the Rules of the Exchange.
    (2) To obtain and maintain the status of a Market Maker on PSX, a
member organization whose market making has not previously been
approved by FINRA under the NASD Rule 1000 Series (or such successor
FINRA Rules as may be adopted by FINRA), NASDAQ under the NASDAQ Rule
1000 Series, or NASDAQ OMX BX under the BX Rule 1000 Series shall: (i)
Have submitted to the Membership Department an application for such
status in the form approved by the Membership Department and any other
information and material requested by the Membership Department; (ii)
have had such application approved by the Membership Department; and
(iii) meet such other requirements as are set forth in the By-Laws or
Rules of the Exchange. The information to be provided shall include a
business plan, an organizational chart, written supervisory procedures
reflecting the change, and such other information as the Membership
Department may request.
    (g)-(j) No change.
* * * * *
    Rule 923. [Reserved] Review of Membership Department Decisions
    If the Membership Department takes an adverse action with respect
to a membership application, permit application, or other matter for
which the Membership Department has responsibility, the department will
notify the applicant in writing of the specific grounds for denial and
the applicant shall have a right to a hearing. Any appeal from a
decision of the

Membership Department shall be heard by a special committee of the
Board of Directors composed of three (3) Directors, of whom at least
one (1) shall be a Public Director. The person requesting review may
appeal by filing a written notice thereof with the Secretary of the
Exchange within ten (10) days after a decision. The person requesting
review shall be permitted to submit a written statement to this special
committee. The Secretary of the Exchange shall certify the record of
the proceeding, if any, and the written decision and shall submit these
documents to the special committee. The special committee's review of
the action shall be based solely on the record, the written decision
and any statement submitted by the person requesting the review. The
special committee shall prepare and deliver to such person a written
decision and reasons therefor. If the special committee affirms the
action, the action shall become effective ten (10) days from the date
of the special committee's decision. There shall be no appeal to the
Board of Directors from any decision of the special committee.
* * * * *
    Rule 3212. Registration as a Market Maker
    (a) Quotations and quotation sizes may be entered into PSX only by
a member organization registered as a PSX Market Maker or other entity
approved by the Exchange to function in a market-making capacity.
Member organizations seeking to become registered as a PSX Market Maker
must comply with the applicable requirements of Rule 910.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently adopted rules to allow market making on
PSX.\3\ Rule 910(f) provides that member organizations seeking to
maintain their status shall submit to the Exchange's Membership
Department (the ``Department'') any information and materials requested
by the Department. Pursuant to this authority, the Department has
determined that in the event a member organization seeks to become a
market maker on PSX, it may request information from the member
organization in order to evaluate its qualifications. However, in order
to make the requirements of the rule clearer, and to describe
circumstances in which submission of additional information will not be
deemed necessary, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 910.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69452 (April 25, 2013),
78 FR 25512 (May 1, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-24).
    \4\ In addition, the Exchange is adding a cross-reference to
Rule 910 to Rule 3212, which governs registration of PSX market
makers in specific securities for which they intend to make markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the amended rule will provide that a member
organization seeking to become a PSX Market Maker must submit required
material to the Exchange's Membership Department unless the member
organization's market making has previously been approved by the
Financial Industry Regulation Authority (``FINRA'') under the NASD Rule
1000 Series (or such successor FINRA rules as FINRA may adopt), The
NASDAQ Stock Market (``NASDAQ'') under the NASDAQ Rule 1000 Series, or
NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX'') under the BX Rule 1000 Series. In this respect,
the proposed rule is modeled on NASDAQ Rules 1011 and 1017, which
provide that a member's market making for the first time on NASDAQ is
considered a material change in its business operations, requiring
approval by the NASDAQ Membership Department, unless ``the member's
market making has previously been approved by FINRA under NASD Rule
1017 or NASDAQ OMX BX under NASDAQ OMX BX Equity Rule 1017.'' \5\ Thus,
the rule recognizes the work performed by other self-regulatory
organizations in vetting the capability of the member to perform market
making functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed Phlx rule is slightly broader, in that it would
recognize a new member's approval as a market maker, or an existing
member's approval as a market maker, under the Rule 1000 Series of
the referenced self-regulatory organizations. The referenced rules
govern both new membership applications and applications for a
change in business operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In cases where a Phlx member organization has not been previously
approved to engage in market making by FINRA, NASDAQ, or BX, the member
organization would be required (i) to submit to the Membership
Department an application in the form approved by the Membership
Department and any other information and material requested by the
Membership Department; (ii) to have had such application approved by
the Membership Department; and (iii) to meet such other requirements as
are set forth in these [sic] By-Laws or the Rules of the Exchange
(e.g., compliance with Rule 3213 (Registration as a Market Maker) and
Rule 911 (Member and Member Organization Participation)). The
information to be provided shall include a business plan, an
organizational chart, written supervisory procedures reflecting the
change, and such other information as the Membership Department may
request. This information is similar to the information required under
NASDAQ Rule 1017(b) in similar circumstances.\6\ The Exchange believes
that such information will enable the Membership Department to review
details necessary to assess the capability of the member organization
to act in a market making capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In contrast to the NASDAQ Rule, however, the Phlx rule will
not specifically require the applicant to provide pro forma
financial statements, which Phlx believes are unlikely to provide
materially useful information about the applicant. The proposed rule
is sufficiently broad, however, to allow the Membership Department
to request such information if deemed appropriate in a specific
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx is also proposing to move Rule 900.2(d), which addresses
appeals from denials of membership or permit applications by the
Membership Department, to new Rule 923. In addition, Phlx proposes
broadening the scope of the moved rule to apply to any adverse decision
of the Membership Department, so that the rule applies to decisions
with respect to market making under Rule 910. Rule 923 provides that if
the Membership Department takes an adverse action with respect to a
membership application, permit application, or other matter for which
the Membership Department has responsibility, the department will
notify the applicant in writing of the specific grounds for denial and
the applicant shall have a right to a hearing. An appeal would be heard
by a special committee of the Board of Directors

composed of three Directors, of whom at least one shall be a Public
Director. The person requesting review may appeal by filing a written
notice thereof with the Secretary of the Exchange within ten days after
a decision. The person requesting review is permitted to submit a
written statement to this special committee. The Secretary of the
Exchange shall certify the record of the proceeding, if any, and the
written decision and shall submit these documents to the special
committee. The special committee's review of the action shall be based
solely on the record, the written decision and any statement submitted
by the person requesting the review. The special committee shall
prepare and deliver to such person a written decision and reasons
therefor. If the special committee affirms the action, the action shall
become effective ten days from the date of the special committee's
decision. The decision of the special committee may not be appealed to
the Board of Directors, and would thus constitute final action by the
Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposed
rule change will make it clear that member organizations seeking to
make markets on PSX for the first time will be required to submit
information necessary to allow the Phlx Membership Department to assess
the capability of the member organization to act in that capacity. The
rule change will also relieve member organizations seeking to make
markets on PSX for the first time from the requirement to submit to
pre-review by the Membership Department in instances where they have
already undergone such a review under the rules of FINRA, NASDAQ or BX.
The rule change also broadens the scope of what may be appealed to a
special committee of the Board of Directors to include any adverse
action of the Membership Department for which it has responsibility.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to apply a consistent
process to all adverse actions of the Membership Department, including
adverse decisions concerning applications to obtain and maintain the
status of a Market Maker, as it will lessen the burden on member
organizations should they otherwise be required to comply with multiple
appellate processes. Moreover, adopting a uniform appellate process
will promote consistent reviews of matters concerning membership-
related adverse actions. Accordingly, Phlx believes that the rule
change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market, and protect investors and the public interest, because
it will clarify the scope of regulatory review by the Phlx Membership
Department while also relieving member organizations of unnecessary
regulatory burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) [sic] and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, by
clarifying the scope of regulatory review by the Phlx Membership
Department of member organizations seeking to become market makers on
PSX, the rule change reflects appropriate regulatory reviews with
respect to member organizations engaging in a new market activity and
provides a uniform process applied to appeals of all adverse actions
taken by the Membership Department. To the extent that this review may
be seen as a burden on competition because it may limit the extent to
which a member organization may make markets, or slow the timing of a
member organization entering this business, such burdens are
appropriate in light of the importance of assessing a member
organization's capability. Moreover, the change to provide that review
is not necessary in the case of member organizations approved to make
markets by other SROs will help mitigate any burden created by the new
rule by eliminating duplicative regulatory reviews. The Exchange
believes that the efficiency and consistency that comes from applying a
uniform process to any adverse action of the Membership Department
lessens the burden on a member organization that appeals such an action
as it would otherwise be required to follow differing processes,
depending on the nature of the adverse action taken.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) [sic] of the Act \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic].
    \10\ 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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-Phlx-2013-84 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-Phlx-2013-84. This file
number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-84 and should be submitted on or before
September 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-21298 Filed 8-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16177-16180]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0128]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; M/V XIANG YUN KOU and MODU NOBLE DISCOVERER;
Resurrection Bay, Seward, AK

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters, from surface to

seabed, around the Motor Vessel (M/V) XIANG YUN KOU and the Mobile
Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) NOBLE DISCOVERER with a planned transit
through Resurrection Bay. The temporary safety zone will encompass the
navigable waters within a 500 yard radius of the MODU NOBLE DISCOVERER
from dock to loading in Resurrection Bay, Seward, Alaska, onto the
transport ship M/V XIANG YUN KOU, and during the vessels intended route
through Resurrection Bay. The purpose of the safety zone is to protect
the persons and vessels from the inherent dangers of towing, loading,
and transport operations of the MODU NOBLE DISCOVERER.

DATES: This rule is effective with actual notice from March 1, 2013
until March 14, 2013. This rule is effective in the Code of Federal
Regulations from March 14, 2013 until March 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0128 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2013-0128 in the ``Keyword'' box,
and then clicking ``Search.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Nathan Menefee, U.S. Coast Guard,
Sector Anchorage, Assistant Chief, Inspections Division; telephone 907-
271-6707, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard was given insufficient prior notice by the MODU operator
that towing was necessary, and as such, it is impracticable to
undertake notice and comment. Immediate action is needed to protect
human life, property, and the environment from possible tampering,
collisions, allisions, oil spills, and releases during this transit.
    For similar reasons, 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 because immediate
action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the
event.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a temporary safety
zone around the M/V XIANG YUN KOU and MODU NOBLE DISCOVERER while
towing, loading, and transporting in approximate position lat.
60[deg]06'30'' North and long. 149[deg]24'00'' West in Resurrection
Bay, Alaska, and through Resurrection Bay, Alaska. The Coast Guard
believes a safety zone is needed based on the significant number of
persons, vessels, and activities involved to tow and load the MODU
NOBLE DISCOVERER and has determined that it is highly likely that any
tampering, collision, allision, or inability to identify, monitor or
mitigate persons, vessels, and any additional hazards that might be
encountered could result in a hazardous situation.
    The loading of the MODU NOBLE DISCOVERER aboard the M/V XIANG YUN
KOU is a complex operation involving multiple assist vessels
maneuvering in close proximity to each other. The vessels involved in
the loading and transportation operation must be able to safely move
around the M/V XIANG YUN KOU and MODU NOBLE DISCOVERER during the
operation without impediment.

C. Discussion of Rule

    For the reasons stated above, the Coast Guard is establishing a
safety zone in the navigable waters, from surface to seabed, within a
500 yard radius of the M/V XIANG YUN KOU and MODU NOBLE DISCOVERER
while towing, loading, and transporting in and through Resurrection
Bay, Alaska from March 1, 2013, through March 15, 2013. If transporting
operations are completed, and the safety zone is determined to be no
longer necessary, enforcement of the zone will end prior to March 15,
2013.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. 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 those Order.
    The proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the
minimal impact this will have on standard vessel operations within the
vicinity of transit in the waters of Resurrection Bay, Seward, Alaska.
The proposed safety zone is designed to allow vessels transiting
through the area to safely travel around the M/V XIANG YUN KOU and MODU
NOBLE DISCOVERER during towing, loading and transporting operations
without incurring additional cost or delay.

2. Impact on 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 would affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending
to transit through or anchor in the transit route in Resurrection Bay,
Alaska from March 2, 2013, through March 15, 2013.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this
rule will be effective for a short period of time, and enforcement will
end once the vessels have departed Resurrection Bay, Alaska.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can 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.

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

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

13. 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.

14. 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, and an environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    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; 50 U.S.C.
191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 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 temporary Sec.  165.T17-0128 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T17-0128  Safety Zone: Resurrection Bay, Seward, AK.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones: The established
safety zone includes the navigable waters from surface to seabed within
a 500 yard radius around the M/V XIANG YUN KOU and the MODU NOBLE
DISCOVERER, in approximate position lat. 60[deg]06'30'' North and long.
149[deg]24'00'' West in Resurrection Bay, Seward, Alaska with a planned
transit through Resurrection Bay, Alaska.
    (b) Effective date. The Safety Zone is effective beginning March 1,
2013, from 8 a.m. local time through March 15, 2013, 10 p.m. local time
or until the vessels transit outside the United States territorial
seas.
    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in Sec.  165.23 apply to all vessels operating within the
areas described in paragraph (a). In addition

to the general regulations, the following provisions apply to this
safety zone:
    (1) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated on-scene representative,
consisting of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast
Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed
as directed by the COTP's designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the COTP or his designated on-scene representative. Any persons
desiring to enter the safety zone must contact the designated on-scene
representative on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) and receive permission
prior to entering.
    (3) If permission is granted to transit within the safety zone, all
persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the designated
on-scene representative.
    (4) The COTP will notify the maritime and general public by marine
information broadcast during the period of time that the safety zones
are in force including notification that the MODU NOBLE DISCOVERER is
loaded onto the M/V XIANG YUN KOU by providing notice in accordance
with 33 CFR 165.7.
    (d) Penalties. Persons and vessels violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: March 1, 2013.
Paul Mehler III,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Western Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2013-05904 Filed 3-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 73042-73043]
[DOCID:fr08de05-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52871; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-88]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Transaction Fees
and a Fee Waiver for Options on the Mini-SPX

December 1, 2005.
    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 October 25, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
On December 1, 2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\3\ The CBOE submitted the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed to reduce the XSP
non-member market-maker transaction fee to $.17 per contract
regardless of the premium.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to establish fees
for options on the Mini-SPX (``XSP''). The Exchange also proposes to
waive all fees for trading in XSP options beginning with the launch of
trading through January 31, 2006. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com), at the

Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission.

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 CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The CBOE 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

a. XSP Fees

    The Exchange proposes to establish fees for XSP options, which
commenced trading on October 25, 2005. XSP options are options that are
based on one-tenth the value of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. XSP
options trade on CBOE's Hybrid 2.0 trading system.
    The transaction fee for customer orders in XSP options will be $.15
per contract. The market-maker transaction fee will also be $.15 per
contract.\6\ The Exchange believes the $.15 market-maker transaction
fee will act as an incentive for market-makers to provide liquidity in
the XSP product. Member firm proprietary transaction fees will be $.20
for facilitation of customer orders and $.24 for non-facilitation
orders. The broker-dealer transaction fee will be $.25 per contract,
the remote market-maker transaction fee will be $.26 per contract, and
the non-member market-maker fee will be $.17 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ XSP options trade without a Designated Primary Market-Maker
(``DPM''), Electronic-DPM (``e-DPM'') or Lead Market-Maker
(``LMM''), under CBOE's index option hybrid rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As per the current CBOE Fee Schedule, the floor brokerage fee for
XSP options will be $.04 per contract and $.02 per contract for crossed
orders. The Marketing Fee and the RAES Access Fee will not apply.

b. Fee Waiver

    The Exchange proposes to waive all fees for trading in XSP options
beginning with the launch of trading in XSP options through January 31,
2006.

Following the fee waiver period, the Exchange will begin assessing the
fees set forth above. The Exchange has decided to waive all XSP fees to
promote the launch of the XSP product.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among CBOE's members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 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, as
amended, will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective upon
filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph
(f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\10\ because it establishes or changes
a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the CBOE. At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule change, as amended, the
Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \11\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
October 25, 2005 and the effective date of the amendment is December
1, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as
amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission
considers the period to commence on December 1, 2005, the date on
which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-CBOE-2005-88 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-88. 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 offices of CBOE. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-CBOE-2005-88 and should be submitted on or before December 29, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E5-7067 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48608-48609]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-506-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on August 30, 2019, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, LLC (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002,
filed in the above referenced docket a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.203, 157.205, and 157.216(b) of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act and its blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP82-413-000 for authorization to abandon an
inactive injection/withdrawal well, designated as Well 5564, in the
Hebron Storage Field (Field) located in Potter County, Pennsylvania.
Specifically, Tennessee proposes to plug and abandon the well, abandon
in place approximately 1,167 feet of six-inch related lateral pipeline,
abandon by removal other related appurtenant facilities including the
well head, and restore the well site. Tennessee states that the
proposed abandonment of Well 5564 will not affect the capacity of the
Field or the deliverability into or from the Field. Further, Tennessee
states that the project will not abandon or decrease service to its
customers. Tennessee estimates the cost of the project to be $550,000,
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the web 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, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Ben J.
Carranza, Director, Regulatory, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC,
1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone at (713) 420-
5535, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and

two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission.
Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's
environmental mailing list, and will be notified of any meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the
Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: September 9, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19953 Filed 9-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2977-2978]
[DOCID:fr18ja06-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53095; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Phlx Rule 1009 To Reference the Exchange's ``designated staff''
or ``designated department'' Instead of Its ``Department of
Securities''

January 10, 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 December 28, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. The Phlx filed
the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission.\5\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ As required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Phlx submitted written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and
text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior
to the date of filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1009 to change the reference
from Department of Securities (``DOS'') to the Exchange's ``designated
staff'' or ``designated department'' to conform the rule to a recent
internal departmental name change. The text of the proposed rule change
is below. Proposed new text is in italic, and proposed deletions are in
[brackets].
Rule 1009. Criteria for Underlying Securities
    (a), (b) and (c)--No Change.
    Commentary:
    .01--No Change.
    .02 (a) Members, member organizations or any person proposing to
list any option not currently listed on the Exchange shall submit a
form of request (a ``Request to List an Option''), available from the
Exchange's [Department of Securities (``DOS''), to DOS staff
``designated staff'' or ``designated department'' (together ``the
designated department'').
    (b) As soon as practicable, but not later than three (3) business
days following receipt of the Request to List an Option, [DOS staff]
the designated department shall review the proposed option's
eligibility for listing, using the objective listing criteria set forth
in Commentary .01 of this Rule. If [DOS staff] the designated
department determines that the proposed option does not meet the
objective listing criteria set forth in Commentary .01 of this Rule,
[DOS staff] the designated department shall prepare a responsive form
(a ``Notification Memorandum'') stating the reason(s) why the proposed
option is not eligible for listing. [DOS staff] The designated
department shall forward the Notification Memorandum to the member or
member organization that submitted the Request to List an Option within
three (3) business days of its determination that the proposed option
does not meet objective listing criteria. [DOS staff] The designated
department shall maintain all Requests to List an Option and
Notification Memoranda in a central file for a period of not less than
five (5) years.
    (c) If [DOS staff] the designated department determines that the
proposed option meets the objective listing criteria set forth in
Commentary .01 of this Rule, [DOS staff] the designated department
shall present the initial Request to List an Option and the subsequent
review to the Chairman of the Board of Governors or his designee, who
shall, within ten (10) business days of receipt of the Request to List
an Option, instruct [DOS staff] the designated department to:
    (i) Solicit options specialists to submit applications for
specialist privileges in the option; or
    (ii) Within three (3) business days, prepare and forward a letter
to the member or member organization that submitted the Request to List
an Option, setting forth in reasonable detail the basis on which the
decision not to list, or to place limitations or conditions upon, the
proposed option was made.
    .02 (d)-(e)--No Change.
    .03-.07--No Change.
* * * * *

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 Phlx 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.
The Phlx 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
    Currently, Commentary .01 to Phlx Rule 1009 states that the
Department of Securities (``DOS'') receives and processes a ``Request
to List an Option'' form. Due to the recent renaming of DOS at the
Exchange, references to DOS in Phlx Rule 1009 need to be changed. To
allow adequate flexibility in the event that further changes are
necessary in the future, the Exchange proposes to replace in Phlx Rule
1009, the term ``DOS'' with the terms ``designated staff'' or
``designated department.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Promptly after publication by the Commission of this filing,
the Exchange will announce the designated staff or designated
department that will receive and process the ``Request to List an
Option'' form by way of a memorandum to Exchange membership.
Thereafter, change in the designated staff or designated department,
which change may be made by an officer of the Exchange, and the
effective date thereof will be announced by way of a memorandum to
Exchange membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by eliminating obsolete references in Phlx Rule 1009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    The Phlx has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, 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) thereunder.
    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Phlx has asked the Commission to waive the 30-
day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because the proposed rule change corrects references
that are now obsolete.\9\ For this reason, the Commission designates
that the proposal has become effective and operative immediately upon
filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2005-84 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 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-84. 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 the Phlx.
    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-Phlx-2005-84
and should be submitted on or before February 8, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-433 Filed 1-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54793-54796]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1229; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-132-AD;
Amendment 39-17181; AD 2012-18-05]
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 certain
The Boeing Company Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-
50 series airplanes; and Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-
83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), MD-88, and MD-90-30 airplanes; equipped
with center wing fuel tank and Boeing original equipment manufacturer-
installed auxiliary fuel tanks. This AD was prompted by fuel system
reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This AD requires adding design
features to detect electrical faults and to detect a pump running in an
empty fuel tank. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of
ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective October 11, 2012.

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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is 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: Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2011 (76 FR
70377). That NPRM proposed to require adding design features to detect
electrical faults, to detect a pump running in an empty fuel tank, and
to ensure that a fuel pump's operation is not affected by certain
conditions.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Request To Revise Applicability

    Boeing requested that we revise the applicability of the NPRM (76
FR 70377, November 14, 2011) to exclude airplanes from which auxiliary
fuel tanks have been removed, and to add certain airplanes equipped
with a center wing fuel tank. Boeing stated that the system safety
assessments (SSAs) of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
(``SFAR 88,'' Amendment 21-78 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) concluded that
design changes were required on all auxiliary fuel tanks on Model DC-9,
MD-80, and MD-90 airplanes, and on the center wing fuel tank on Model
MD-80 and MD-90 airplanes. American Airlines (American) concurred with
Boeing's position on this issue.
    We agree to limit the applicability of this AD to affected
airplanes equipped with center wing fuel tanks and Boeing OEM-installed
auxiliary fuel tanks. We also agree that airplanes on which auxiliary
fuel tanks have been removed are not subject to the requirements of
this AD. We have revised paragraph (c) in this final rule accordingly.

Requests To Remove Criteria for Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)

    Boeing and TDG Aerospace requested that we provide justification
for the removal of pump nuisance trip relative to the 100,000-hour MTBF
reliability requirements to mitigate the ignition prevention unsafe
condition. The commenters asserted that the 100,000-hour MTBF
reliability requirement is not a contributing factor to the ignition
source unsafe condition for design changes mandated by the NPRM (76 FR
70377, November 14, 2011). American concurred with Boeing's position on
this issue.
    We agree with the request. The MTBF of the component will be
addressed in the design change package provided for certification to
satisfy the criteria for compliance with the requirements of this AD.
We have accordingly removed paragraph (g)(3) in this final rule.

Request To Redefine Certain Failure Conditions

    Boeing claimed that the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) was
too broad in its descriptions of the unsafe failure modes. Boeing
requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM to define the
failure modes that would require corrective action as electrical faults
that are ``capable of burning through the pump housing's explosion-
proof boundaries'' (instead of those that ``can cause arcing and burn
through the fuel pump housing,'' as specified in the NPRM). Boeing
asserted that this clarification would ensure that the corrective
actions would target only the potential fuel tank ignition sources
identified during the SSAs, by identifying only those fuel pump
electrical faults and fuel pump dry-running conditions capable of
developing a fuel tank ignition source. American concurred with
Boeing's position on this issue.
    We disagree with the request. Narrowing the failure conditions to
certain types of failures or certain explosion-proof pump boundaries
would limit the application of a broader

array of ignition prevention solutions. We have not changed the final
rule regarding this issue.

Request To Remove Certain Restriction

    Paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011)
specified that the new pump shutoff system must shut off each pump no
later than 60 seconds after the fuel tank is emptied. Noting that the
SFAR 88 SSAs recommended minimizing dry-running time but provided no
specific dry-running time limit, Boeing requested that we remove the
60-second restriction. Boeing suggested basing dry-running time limits
on the risk of developing a fuel tank ignition source threat by the
affected designs, and added that the pump shutoff design feature must
balance that risk against adding to crew workload to correct nuisance
pump shutoffs in a near-empty fuel tank. Boeing noted that the FAA has
approved auto-shutoff timers on other airplane designs that may allow
pumps to run longer than 60 seconds after a fuel tank was emptied.
American concurred with Boeing's position on this issue.
    We do not agree to remove the 60-second pump shutoff restriction.
The intent of this AD is to mandate that fuel pumps be shut off after
fuel tanks empty to prevent pump dry running. The FAA has mandated a
15-second shutoff time on other applications, and has determined that a
60-second shutoff time is not unreasonable in this case. We have not
changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Mandate Airworthiness Limitations

    Boeing noted that the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) would
not mandate airworthiness limitations such as critical design
configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) and/or repetitive
inspections or functional checks for the proposed changes. Boeing
requested that we revise Note 1 of the NPRM to require operators to
comply with any related airworthiness limitations. American concurred
with Boeing's position on this issue.
    We disagree with the request to mandate airworthiness limitations.
CDCCLs for this design are not defined yet and will be included in the
certification approval, as required under paragraph (g) of this AD. We
have removed Note 1 in this final rule, but have otherwise not changed
the AD regarding this issue.

Request To Delay Issuance of Final Rule

    American requested that we delay issuing the final rule pending the
release of service information associated with the design features
proposed by the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011). American
indicated that additional time is necessary to allow operators time for
reviewing the modification options, planning, ordering modification
parts, and completing the required work during a heavy maintenance
check.
    We disagree with the request. Delaying issuance of this AD would
have adverse safety implications. We anticipate that FAA-approved
design solutions will be available in sufficient time for operators to
comply with the AD within 60 months. We have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Terminology

    TDG Aerospace requested that we clarify the term ``preclude'' as
used in the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) in paragraph (g)(2):
``The pump shutoff system design must preclude undetected running of a
fuel pump in an empty tank, after the pump was commanded off manually
or automatically.'' TDG Aerospace considered ``undetected running of a
fuel pump'' a significant latent failure condition, as defined by FAA
Advisory Circular 25.981-1C, ``Fuel Tank Ignition Source Prevention
Guidelines,'' dated September 19, 2008 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2025_981-1.pdf). TDG
therefore requested that we confirm that use of the word ``preclude''
is done in the context of the allowable period of latency for
significant latent failure conditions (i.e., one flight cycle). The
commenter did not justify or further explain the request.
    We agree that the word ``preclude'' is consistent with failure
latency period equal to one flight accommodated in paragraph 10.c.(3)
of FAA AC 25.981-1C. We have not changed the final rule regarding this
issue.

Request To Approve Modification

    American requested that we approve for compliance with the NPRM (76
FR 70377, November 14, 2011) the installation of a certain universal
fault interrupter that American alleges will adequately address the
unsafe condition. American stated that the functionality of this
modification has been demonstrated and approved as equivalent or
exceeding the protection provided by that of a standard ground fault
interrupter (GFI) relay previously approved for AD 2011-18-03,
Amendment 39-16785 (76 FR 53317, August 26, 2011); and AD 2011-20-07,
Amendment 39-16818 (76 FR 60710, September 30, 2011).
    We disagree with the request. Those parts have not been approved
for these airplanes. The referenced ADs apply to airplanes not affected
by this AD, and do not address the same unsafe condition identified in
this AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Add Flight Crew Notification

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) fully
supported the proposed requirements of the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November
14, 2011), and requested an additional design feature that would notify
the flight crew when the fuel pump has been automatically shut off if
an electrical anomaly is detected or if the fuel tank is empty.
    We disagree with the request. When the fuel pump is automatically
shut off because of an electrical anomaly, the flight crew will be
unable to take any further action to start up the pump, so
notifications of this condition to the flight crew would serve no
purpose. Electrical failures that automatically shut off the pump are
logged for maintenance action after landing to safely restart the pump.
We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

    Boeing requested that we revise the cost estimates specified in the
NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) to reflect updated fleet size
information. American concurred with this request.
    We have reviewed the fleet information provided by Boeing, and have
revised the estimated costs accordingly in this final rule.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the 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 (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 70377, November 14, 2011).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic

burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 809 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installing design features--for         50 work-hours x $85 per          $35,000         $39,250     $10,322,750
 airplanes with center wing and          hour = $4,250.
 auxiliary tanks (263 airplanes).
Installing design features--for         35 work-hours x $85 per           17,000          19,975      10,906,350
 airplanes with center wing tank (546    hour = $2,975.
 airplanes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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):

2012-18-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17181; Docket No. FAA-
2011-1229; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-132-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 11, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in
any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of
this AD, and equipped with center wing fuel tanks and Boeing
original equipment manufacturer-installed auxiliary fuel tanks. For
airplanes from which the auxiliary fuel tanks have been removed, the
actions specified in this AD are not required.
    (1) Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-
15F airplanes.
    (2) Model DC-9-21 airplanes.
    (3) Model DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F,
DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, and DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B) airplanes.
    (4) Model DC-9-41 airplanes.
    (5) Model DC-9-51 airplanes.
    (6) Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and
DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes.
    (7) Model MD-88 airplanes.
    (8) Model MD-90-30 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of
ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Criteria for Operation

    As of 60 months after the effective date of this AD, no person
may operate any airplane affected by this AD unless an amended type
certificate or supplemental type certificate that incorporates the
design features and requirements described in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD has been approved by the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, and those design features
are installed on the airplane.
    (1) Each electrically powered fuel pump installed in the center
wing tank or auxiliary fuel tank must have a protective device
installed to detect electrical faults that can cause arcing and burn
through the fuel pump housing. The same device must shut off the
pump by automatically removing electrical power from the pump when
such faults are detected. When a fuel pump is shut off as the result
of detection of an electrical fault, the device must stay latched
off until the fault is cleared through maintenance action and
verified that the pump and the electrical power feed is safe for
operation.
    (2) Additional design features must be installed to detect when
any center wing tank or auxiliary fuel tank pump is running in an
empty fuel tank. The prospective pump shutoff system must shut off
each pump no later than 60 seconds after the fuel tank is emptied.
The pump shutoff system design must preclude undetected running of a
fuel pump in an empty tank, after the pump was commanded off
manually or automatically.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (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.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Serj Harutunian,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles
ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 6, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-21838 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P