[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10744-10747]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0813; Product Identifier 2019-CE-040-AD; Amendment
39-21387; AD 2021-02-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Model PC-12/47E airplanes. This AD was
prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as

inboard flap fairings aft (IFFAs) having an incorrect shape, which may
result in chafing between the IFFA and the associated front inboard
tension rod. This AD requires an inspection of the IFFAs for the
correct shape and chafing between the IFFA and the associated front
inboard tension rod, with corrective action as necessary. This
condition could lead to failure of the inboard flap drive arm with
consequent asymmetric flap extension, resulting in reduced control of
the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 30, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 30,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd., Customer Support PC-12, CH-6371 Stans,
Switzerland; phone: +41 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 41 619 73 11; email:
exception occurred on : 2021-03476.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-03476.htm
aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; website: https://www.pilatus-
aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0813.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0813; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
MCAI, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is 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: Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Pilatus Model PC-
12/47E airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
September 16, 2020 (85 FR 57804). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require an inspection of the IFFAs for the correct shape and chafing
between the IFFA and the associated front inboard tension rod, with
corrective action as necessary.
    The NPRM was based on MCAI from the European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union. EASA issued AD No.: 2019-0231, dated September 13,
2019 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for Pilatus Model PC-12/47E airplanes. The MCAI states:

    On the final assembly line of PC-12/47E aeroplanes, IFFAs were
detected having an incorrect shape. As a consequence, chafing
between the IFFA and the associated front inboard tension rod could
occur, may cause corrosion of the bare rod aluminium tube and reduce
aluminium thickness.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the inboard flap drive arm with consequent asymmetric
flap extension, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued the
[service bulletin] SB to provide inspection and modification
instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection of both IFFA and, depending on findings, a follow-on
inspection of the associated front inboard tension rod for chafing,
and modification or replacement of affected parts.

    You may examine the MCAI at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0813.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received two comments from Pilatus. The following presents
the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each
comment.
    Pilatus requested the FAA reduce the applicability of the proposed
AD from all Model PC-12/47E airplanes to Model PC-12/47E airplanes with
serial number (S/N) 1576 and higher. Pilatus stated that due to an
engineering change in 2014, the left-hand (LH) IFFA, part number (P/N)
5<IP_ADDRESS>, and the right-hand (RH) IFFA, P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS>,
introduced on airplanes with S/N 1576 and higher, have different
attachment hole positions and a maximum hole position difference of
more than 12mm. As a result, it is not physically possible to install
P/Ns 5<IP_ADDRESS> and 5<IP_ADDRESS> on airplanes with an S/N lower
than 1576.
    The FAA partially agrees. The commenter is correct that the
affected IFFAs cannot be installed on Model PC-12/47E airplanes with an
S/N lower than 1576. The FAA has revised paragraph (f) of this AD to
limit the inspection of the IFFAs to airplanes with an S/N 1576 and
higher.
    Pilatus acknowledged that tension rod P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS> can be
installed on all Model PC-12/47E airplanes but requested the FAA limit
the tension rod inspection for airplanes with an S/N lower than 1576 to
only those with maintenance records showing that the tension rod had
been installed.
    The FAA partially agrees. The FAA has revised the tension rod
inspection to limit its scope for airplanes with an S/N lower than
1576. Because the tension rods are not life-limited parts, there is no
regulatory requirement for them to be serialized or for operators to
record or retain information about the part's traceability. Therefore,
operators would be unable to comply with, and the FAA would be unable
to enforce, the change requested by the commenter, as maintenance
records may not identify if a tension rod was removed from an airplane
with an S/N 1576 or higher. Instead, the FAA has changed the AD so that
the inspection of the tension rod is required for all airplanes with a
S/N 1576 or higher and for airplanes with a S/N 1001 through 1575 if
tension rod P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS> is installed.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for the changes described
previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Pilatus PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-026, dated
July 10, 2019 (Pilatus SB No. 27-026). The service information
specifies procedures for inspecting and correcting chafing between the
left and right IFFAs and the associated front inboard tension rods.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal

course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI only requires inspection of the tension rods if the IFFAs
are modified because they have been found to have the incorrect shape.
Due to the length of time between manufacture and the issuance of this
AD, operators could have installed an affected tension rod onto an
airplane that was not manufactured with the defective part. Therefore,
this AD requires inspection for chafing damage on the tension rods on
all Model PC-12/47E airplanes that have an affected tension rod
installed.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 18 products of U.S.
registry. The FAA also estimates that it will take about 2.5 work-hours
per product to comply with the requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,600
per product.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators will be $32,634 or $1,813 per product.
    The FAA has included all costs in this cost estimate. According to
the manufacturer, however, all or some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
operators.

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.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2021-02-04 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Amendment 39-21387; Docket No.
FAA-2020-0813; Product Identifier 2019-CE-040-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 30, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-12/47E
airplanes, all serial numbers (S/Ns), certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2700: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as inboard flap
fairings aft (IFFAs) having an incorrect shape. The FAA is issuing
this AD to prevent chafing between the IFFA and the front inboard
tension rod, and consequent corrosion of the bare rod aluminum tube
and reduced aluminum thickness. This condition, if not corrected,
could lead to failure of the inboard flap drive arm, asymmetric flap
extension, and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    (1) For airplanes with a S/N 1576 and higher, unless already
done, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD or within 6 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the left-hand (LH) and right-
hand (RH) IFFAs for correct shape and clearance with the LH and RH
tension rods by following step 3.B.(1) and Figures 2 and 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions--Aircraft in Pilatus PC-12 Service
Bulletin No: 27-026, dated July 10, 2019 (Pilatus SB 27-026).
    (i) If the shape of the LH or RH IFFA is incorrect or if the
clearance between the IFFA and the tension rod is less than 5 mm
(0.2 inch), before further flight, modify the IFFA and inspect the
tension rods for chafing by following section 3.C. of the
Accomplishment Instructions--Aircraft in Pilatus SB 27-026.
    (ii) If the shape of the LH and RH IFFAs is correct and the
clearance between the IFFA and the tension rod is at least 5 mm (0.2
inch), before further flight, inspect the front inboard LH and RH
tension rods for chafing by following step 3.C.(12)(a) of the
Accomplishment Instructions--Aircraft in Pilatus SB 27-026. If the
LH or RH tension rod has any chafing, before further flight, replace
the tension rod by following step 3.C.(12)(b) of the Accomplishment
Instructions--Aircraft in Pilatus SB 27-026.
    (2) For airplanes with a S/N 1001 through S/N 1575, inclusive,
that have a tension rod part number (P/N) 5<IP_ADDRESS> installed,
unless already done, within 100 hours TIS after the effective date
of this AD or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, inspect the front inboard LH and RH tension
rods for chafing by following step 3.C.(12)(a) of the Accomplishment
Instructions--Aircraft in Pilatus SB 27-026. If the LH or RH tension
rod has any chafing, before further flight, replace the tension rod
by following step 3.C.(12)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions--
Aircraft in Pilatus SB 27-026.
    (3) For all Model PC-12/47E airplanes, as of the effective date
of this AD, do not install on any airplane an LH IFFA P/N
5<IP_ADDRESS>, RH IFFA P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS>, or tension rod P/N
5<IP_ADDRESS> unless the part has been inspected and all corrective
actions have been taken as required by this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Doug Rudolph,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(h) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD No.
2019-0231, dated September 13, 2019, for related information. You
may examine the MCAI at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0813.
    (2) For service information related to this AD, contact Pilatus
Aircraft, Ltd., Customer Support PC-12, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland;
phone: +41 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 41 619 73 11; email:
exception occurred on : 2021-03476.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-03476.htm
aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; website: https://www.pilatus-
aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pilatus Service Bulletin No: 27-026, dated July 10, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. service information identified in
this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd., Customer Support PC-12, CH-
6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 41 619 73
exception occurred on : 2021-03476.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-03476.htm
11; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; website: https://
www.pilatus-aircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 6, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03476 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22011-22015]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08609]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69339; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving, on
an Accelerated Basis, Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, Adopting Exchange Rule 953.1NY To Provide for How the Exchange
Proposes To Treat Orders, Market-Making Quoting Obligations, and Errors
in Response to the Regulation NMS Plan To Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility; and Amending Exchange Rule 953NY To Codify That the
Exchange Shall Halt Trading in All Options Overlying NMS Stocks When
the Equities Markets Initiate a Market-Wide Trading Halt Due to
Extraordinary Market Volatility

April 8, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 26, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to provide for how the Exchange proposes to treat
orders, market-making quoting obligations, and errors in response to
the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility and
to codify that the Exchange shall halt trading in all options overlying
NMS stocks when the equities markets initiate a market-wide trading
halt due to extraordinary market volatility. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 4, 2013.\4\
On April 1, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\5\ The Commission received one comment letter on the
proposal.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69033, 78 FR 15067
(March 8, 2013).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange expanded upon its rationale
for its proposed changes regarding the nullification and adjustment
of options transactions, agreed to provide the Commission with
relevant data to assess the impact of the proposal, and clarified
the length of the pilot period related to such changes. Because the
changes made in Amendment No. 1 do not materially alter the
substance of the proposed rule change or raise any novel regulatory
issues, Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice and comment.
    \6\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGinness, Executive Vice President and Corporate
Secretary, General Counsel, NYSE Markets, dated April 5, 2013
(``NYSE Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On May 6, 2010, the U.S. equity markets experienced a severe
disruption that, among other things, resulted in the prices of a large
number of individual securities suddenly declining by significant
amounts in a very short time period before suddenly reversing to prices
consistent with their pre-decline levels.\7\ This severe price
volatility led to a large number of trades being executed at
temporarily depressed prices, including many that were more than 60%
away from pre-decline prices. One response to the events of May 6,
2010, was the development of the single-stock circuit breaker pilot
program, which was implemented through a series of rule filings by the
equity exchanges and by FINRA.\8\ The single-stock circuit breaker was
designed to reduce extraordinary market volatility in NMS stocks by
imposing a five-minute trading pause when a trade was executed at a
price outside of a specified percentage threshold.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The events of May 6 are described more fully in a joint
report by the staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') and the Commission. See Report of the Staffs of the CFTC
and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory
Issues, ``Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,''
dated September 30, 2010, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf.
    \8\ For further discussion on the development of the single-
stock circuit breaker pilot program, see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012)
(``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62884 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608 (September
16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033) (describing the ``second stage'' of
the single-stock circuit breaker pilot) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011)
(describing the ``third stage'' of the single-stock circuit breaker
pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To replace the single-stock circuit breaker pilot program, the
equity exchanges filed a National Market System Plan \10\ pursuant to
Section 11A of the Act,\11\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\12\ which featured
a ``limit up-limit down'' mechanism (as amended, the ``Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NYSE Euronext filed on behalf of New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), and the parties to the proposed National Market
System Plan, BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, and National Stock Exchange,
Inc. (collectively with NYSE, NYSE MKT, and NYSE Arca, the
``Participants''). On May 14, 2012, NYSE Amex filed a proposed rule
change on an immediately effective basis to change its name to NYSE
MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
67037 (May 21, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan sets forth requirements that are designed to prevent
trades in individual NMS stocks from occurring outside of the specified
price bands. The price bands consist of a lower price band and an upper
price band for each NMS stock. When one side of the market for an
individual security is outside the applicable price band, i.e., the
National Best Bid is below the Lower Price Band, or the National Best
Offer is above the Upper Price band, the Processors \13\ are required
to disseminate such National Best Bid or National Best Offer \14\ with
a flag identifying that quote as non-executable. When the other side of
the market reaches the applicable price band, i.e., the National Best
Offer reaches the lower price band, or the National Best Bid reaches
the upper price band, the market for an individual security enters a
15-second Limit State, and the Processors are required disseminate such
National Best Offer or National Best Bid with an appropriate flag
identifying it as a Limit State Quotation. Trading in that stock would
exit the Limit State if, within 15 seconds of entering the Limit State,
all Limit State Quotations were executed or canceled in their entirety.
If the market does not exit a Limit State within 15 seconds, then the
Primary Listing Exchange will declare a five-minute trading pause,
which is applicable to all markets trading the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As used in the Plan, the Processor refers to the single
plan processor responsible for the consolidation of information for
an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
    \14\ ``National Best Bid'' and ``National Best Offer'' has the
meaning provided in Rule 600(b)(42) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Primary Listing Exchange may also declare a trading pause when
the stock is in a Straddle State, i.e., the National Best Bid (Offer)
is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS Stock is not
in a Limit State. In order to declare a trading pause in this scenario,
the Primary Listing Exchange must determine that trading in that stock
deviates from normal trading characteristics such that declaring a
trading pause would support the Plan's goal to address extraordinary
market volatility.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As set forth in more detail in the Plan, all trading
centers would be required to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the
display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids above the
Upper Price Band for an NMS Stock. The Processors would be able to
disseminate an offer below the Lower Price Band or bid above the
Upper Price Band that nevertheless may be inadvertently submitted
despite such reasonable policies and procedures, but with an
appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable; such bid or offer
would not be included in National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations. In addition, all trading centers would be required to
develop, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent trades at prices outside the price bands, with
the exception of single-priced opening, reopening, and closing
transactions on the Primary Listing Exchange.

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

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan as a one-year
pilot, which shall be implemented in two phases.\16\ The first phase of
the Plan shall be implemented beginning April 8, 2013.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra note 8. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953 (February 20, 2013), 78 FR
13113 (February 26, 2013) (Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., et al.) and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 69062 (March 7, 2013), 78 FR 15757 (March 12, 2013) (Third
Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS
Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., et al.)
    \17\ See ``Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra
note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposal

1. Treatment of Market and Stop Orders

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Exchange Rule 953.1NY to provide
for how the Exchange shall treat orders and quotes in options overlying
NMS if the underlying NMS stock is in a Limit State and Straddle State.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes that if the underlying NMS stock is
in a Limit State or Straddle State, the Exchange shall reject all
incoming Market Orders and will not elect Stop Orders.\18\ According to
the Exchange, when the underlying enters a Limit or Straddle State,
there may not be a reliable underlying reference price, there may be a
wide bid/ask quotation differential in the option, and there may be
less liquidity in the options markets. For these reasons, the Exchange
stated that permitting these order types to execute when the underlying
NMS stock is in a Limit or Straddle State could lead to executions at
prices that may inferior to the NBBO immediately before the underlying
entered the Limit or Straddle State, and could add to volatility in the
options markets during times of extraordinary market volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rule 900.3NY(d)(1). Stop Orders when elected create a
Market Order to buy or sell the option. In contrast, the Exchange is
not proposing to prohibit the election of Stop Limit Orders. Stop
Limit Orders when elected create a Limit Order to buy or sell the
option at a specific price. See 900.3NY(d)(2). The Exchange
represented that Stop Limit Orders do not raise the same risks
during periods of extraordinary volatility, because once elected the
associated limit orders would not race through the order book in the
manner that an elected Market Order would.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Specialist and Market Maker Quoting Obligations

    The Exchange also proposes to modify its rules governing quoting
obligations for Specialists and Market Makers. Specifically, the
Exchange will provide that, when evaluating whether a Specialist has
met its market-making quoting requirement pursuant to Rule 925.1NY(b)
or a Market Maker has met its market-making quoting requirement
pursuant to Rule 925.1NY(c) in options overlying NMS stocks, the
Exchange shall consider as a mitigating circumstance the frequency and
duration of occurrences when an underlying NMS stock is in a Limit
State or a Straddle State. For example, if a Market Maker failed to
meet its monthly quoting obligations, and during the review, it was
determined that the quoting that failed to meet the obligation was for
options on NMS stocks with a significant number of Straddle States and
Limit States, then pursuant to proposed Rule 953.1NY(c), that would be
considered a mitigating circumstance that would entitle that Market
Maker to relief.
    The Exchange represented that this change is necessary given the
direct relationship between the price of an option and the price of the
underlying security, which may affect the quoting behavior of
Specialists and Market Makers. For example, when the underlying is in a
Limit or Straddle State, the ability of a Specialist or Market Maker to
hedge an options position may be impaired, and they modify their
quoting behavior accordingly. The Exchange also stated that this aspect
of its proposal would facilitate transactions and preserve market
liquidity.

3. Declaration of Trading Halts

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 953NY so that the Exchange
would halt trading in all options whenever the equities markets halt
trading in all NMS stocks due to extraordinary market volatility, i.e.,
when a market-wide circuit breaker is triggered.\19\ The Exchange noted
that this provision, which explicitly provides for a trading halt when
the equities market is halted due to the market-wide circuit breaker,
is similar to a rule recently amended by CBOE.\20\ The Exchange also
represented that the remaining provisions in existing Rule 953NY
regarding Trading Halts and Suspensions remain unchanged and provide a
means to halt or suspend trading in options contracts whenever the
Exchange deems such action appropriate in the interests of a fair and
orderly market and to protect investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Market-wide circuit breakers in the equities market are
different than a trading halt during a Trading Pause in the
underlying pursuant to the LULD Plan. Market-wide circuit breakers
for equities are currently covered by NYSE MKT Rule 80B--Equities.
See NYSE MKT Rule 80B--Equities. The Exchange's Rule regarding
trading pauses (also known as ``single stock circuit breakers'') is
found in Rule 953NY(b) for options and NYSE MKT Rule 80C(b)--
Equities for equities.
    \20\ See CBOE Rule 6.3B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange is proposing to add Commentary .05 to
provide that reopening of trading following a trading halt under this
Rule shall be conducted pursuant to procedures adopted by the Exchange
and communicated by notice to its ATP Holders and ATP Firms. The
Exchange represented this Commentary is similar to that found in CBOE
Rule 6.3B, and nearly identical to Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Options
Rule 7.5.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See CBOE Rule 6.3B and NYSE Arca Options Rule 7.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Obvious Error

    In connection with the implementation of the Plan, the Exchange
proposes to adopt new Rule 953.1NY(c) to exclude electronic
transactions in stock options that overlay an NMS stock that occur
during a Limit State or Straddle State from the provisions of Rule
975NY(a) for Obvious Errors or Rule 975NY(d) for Catastrophic Errors.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to retain the ability to review
electronic transactions that occur during a Limit State or Straddle
State by Exchange motion pursuant to Rule 975NY(b)(3).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Rule 975NY(b)(3) provides that in the interest of
maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the protection of
investors, the Exchange's Chief Executive Officer (``CEO'') or
designee thereof, who is an officer of the Exchange (collectively
``Exchange officer''), may, on his or her own motion or upon
request, determine to review any transaction occurring on the
Exchange that is believed to be erroneous. A transaction reviewed
pursuant to this provision may be nullified or adjusted only if it
is determined by the Exchange officer that the transaction is
erroneous as provided in Rule 975NY(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5) or (a)(6).
A transaction would be adjusted or nullified in accordance with the
provision under which it is deemed an erroneous transaction. The
Exchange officer may be assisted by a Trading Official in reviewing
a transaction. In addition, the Exchange officer shall act pursuant
to 975NY(b)(3) as soon as possible after receiving notification of
the transaction, and ordinarily would be expected to act on the same
day as the transaction occurred. In no event shall the Exchange
officer act later than 9:30 a.m. (ET) on the next trading day
following the date of the transaction in question. An ATP Holder
affected by a determination to nullify or adjust a transaction
pursuant to this paragraph (3) may appeal such determination in
accordance with Rule 975NY(c); however, a determination by an
Exchange officer not to review a transaction, or a determination not
to nullify or adjust a transaction for which a review was requested
or conducted, is not appealable. If a transaction is reviewed and a
determination is rendered pursuant to Rules 975NY(a)(3), (a)(4),
(a)(5) or (a)(6), no additional relief may be granted under this
provision.

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

    Rule 975NY provides a process by which a transaction may be
nullified or adjusted when the execution price of a transaction
deviates from the option's theoretical price by a certain amount.
Generally, the theoretical price of an option is the National Best Bid
and Offer (``NBBO'') of the option. In certain circumstances, Trading
Officials have the discretion to determine the theoretical price.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Specifically, under Rules 975NY(a)(2) and 975NY(d)(2), the
theoretical price is determined in one of two ways: (i) If the
series is traded on at least one other options exchange, the last
bid price with respect to an erroneous sell transaction and the last
offer price with respect to an erroneous buy transaction, just prior
to the trade, that comprise the NBBO as disseminated by the Options
Price Reporting Authority; or (ii) as determined by a designated
Trading Official, if there are not quotes for comparison purposes,
or if the bid/ask differential of the NBBO for the affected series
just prior to the erroneous transaction was at least two times the
permitted bid/ask differential pursuant to Rule 925NY(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes maintaining the current operation of Rules
975NY(a)(1) and 975NY(d)(1) during a Limit State or Straddle State
would be undesirable. According to the Exchange, during periods of
extraordinary volatility, the review period \24\ for transactions under
the Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error provisions would allow market
participants to re-evaluate a transaction that occurred during a Limit
State or Straddle State at a later time, which is potentially unfair to
other market participants and would discourage market participants from
providing liquidity during Limit States or Straddle States. The
Exchange believes that market participants should not be able to
benefit from the time frame to review their transactions in these
situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Pursuant to Rule 975NY(b), market participants may have up
to 20 minutes to notify the Exchange of a transaction that may be an
Obvious Error. Pursuant to Rule 975NY(d), market participants may
have up to 8:30 a.m. ET on the first trading day following a
transaction to review it as a Catastrophic Error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also noted that, barring this proposed rule change,
the provisions of Rules 975NY(a)(2)(B) and 975NY(d)(2)(B) \25\ would
likely apply in many instances during Limit or Straddle States. The
Exchange believes this provision would give rise to much uncertainty
for market participants as there is no bright line definition of what
the theoretical value should be for an option when the underlying NMS
stock has an unexecutable bid or offer or both. The Exchange notes that
the theoretical price in this context would be subjective. Ultimately,
the Exchange believes that adding certainty to the execution of orders
in these situations should encourage market participants to continue to
provide liquidity to the Exchange, thus promoting fair and orderly
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ These provisions give the Exchange Trading Official the
discretion to determine the theoretical price of an option for
purposes of analyzing whether a transaction qualifies for
nullification or adjustment under Rule 975NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange also noted that application of
current Rules 975NY(a) and 975NY(d) would be unreliable during a Limit
State or Straddle State. The Exchange believes that application of
Rules 975NY(a) and 975NY(d) to electronic transactions occurring during
a Limit or Straddle State would be impracticable given the lack of a
reliable national best bid or offer in the options market during Limit
States and Straddle States and that the resulting actions may not be
appropriate given market conditions. On balance, the Exchange believes
that removing the potential inequity of nullifying or adjusting
executions occurring during Limit States or Straddle States outweighs
any potential benefits from applying Rules 975NY(a) and 975NY(d) during
such unusual market conditions.
    In response to these concerns, the Exchange proposes to adopt Rule
953.1NY(c) to provide that electronic transactions are not subject to
an obvious error or catastrophic error review pursuant to Rules
975NY(a) and 975NY(d) during a Limit State or Straddle State.
    Proposed Rule 953.1NY(c) will also include a qualification that
nothing in the proposed rule change will prevent electronic trades from
being reviewed on Exchange motion pursuant to Rule 975NY(b)(3).\26\
According to the Exchange, this safeguard will provide the flexibility
to act when necessary and appropriate, while also providing market
participants with certainty that trades they effect with quotes and/or
orders having limit prices will stand irrespective of subsequent moves
in the underlying security. The right to review on Exchange motion
electronic transactions that occur during a Limit State or Straddle
State under this provision, according to the Exchange, would enable the
Exchange to account for unforeseen circumstances that result in obvious
or catastrophic errors for which a nullification or adjustment may be
necessary in order to preserve the interest of maintaining a fair and
orderly market and for the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange stated that it received informal feedback from
a number of market participants, including liquidity providers and
order flow providers, that has generally been supportive of the
Exchange's proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also noted that its existing order protections that
reject limit orders that are priced too far through the NBBO would
continue to apply during Limit and Straddle States. Additionally, the
Exchange notes that while in Limit States and Straddle States, only
limit orders will be accepted, affirming that the participant is
willing to accept an execution up to the limit price. Further,
according to the Exchange, the Exchange system will only trade through
the theoretical bid or offer if the Exchange or the participant (via an
ISO order) has accessed all better priced interest away in accordance
with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan. The
Exchange believes potential trade reviews of executions that occurred
at the participant's limit price in compliance with the aforementioned
Plan could harm liquidity and also create an advantage to either side
of an execution depending on the future movement of the underlying
stock.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\27\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\28\ which,
among other things, requires a national securities exchange to be so
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange, and 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 regulation, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposal to reject market orders and to not
elect Stop Orders when the underlying is in a

Limit or Straddle State, the Exchange stated that permitting these
order types to execute during these times could contribute to market
volatility and could have the potential to lead to poor executions, as
spreads in the options markets might have widened in response to the
underlying entering a Limit or Straddle State. The Commission believes
that rejecting market orders and not electing Stop Orders during these
times will provide certainty to the treatment of Market Orders and Stop
Orders during these times. To the extent that the spreads in the
options market may widen as a result of the underlying entering a Limit
or Straddle State, this proposal may also prevent market and Stop
Orders from receiving executions at unintended prices during these
times.
    With respect to deeming the frequency and duration with which the
underlying security is in a Limit or Straddle State a mitigating
circumstance when evaluating the adherence of Specialists and Market
Makers to their respective quoting obligations, the Commission finds
that this proposal represents an appropriate response to the potential
effect on the options markets of the underlying entering a Limit or
Straddle State. During a limit up-limit down state, there may not be a
reliable price for the underlying security to serve as a benchmark for
market makers to price options. In addition, the absence of an
executable bid or offer for the underlying security will make it more
difficult for market makers to hedge the purchase or sale of an option.
Given these significant changes to the normal operating conditions of
market makers, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal in
these limited circumstances is consistent with the Act.
    The Commission notes, however, that the Plan was approved on a
pilot basis and its Participants will monitor how it is functioning in
the equity markets during the pilot period. To this end, the Commission
expects that, upon implementation of the Plan, the Exchange will
continue monitoring this amendment to its rules and determine if any
necessary adjustments are required to ensure that they remain
consistent with the Act.
    The Commission also believes that the proposal to halt trading in
the options market when trading in the equities markets has been halted
as a result of the market-wide circuit breaker being triggered is
consistent with the Act. This proposal is reasonably designed to ensure
that the Exchange halts trading in all options whenever the equities
markets initiate a trading halt as a result of the market-wide circuit
breaker, thereby minimizing volatility in the options markets. This
provision is also similar to a corresponding CBOE rule. The provision
addressing re-opening of trading following such a halt is substantively
similar to both CBOE Rule 6.3B, and the commentary contained in NYSE
Arca Rule 7.5.
    The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to suspend
certain aspects of Rule 975NY during a Limit State or Straddle State is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\29\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\30\ in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just
and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange notes its belief that suspending
certain aspects of Rule 975NY during a Limit State or Straddle State
will ensure that limit orders that are filled during a Limit or
Straddle State will have certainty of execution in a manner that
promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments
to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open market and a
national market system. The Exchange states that it believes the
application of the current rule would be impracticable given what it
perceives will be the lack of a reliable NBBO in the options market
during Limit States and Straddle States, and that the resulting actions
(i.e., nullified trades or adjusted prices) may not be appropriate
given market conditions. In addition, given the Exchange's view that
options prices during Limit States or Straddle States may deviate
substantially from those available shortly following the Limit State or
Straddle State, the Exchange believes that providing market
participants time to re-evaluate a transaction executed during a Limit
or Straddle State will create an unreasonable adverse selection
opportunity that will discourage participants from providing liquidity
during Limit States or Straddle States. Ultimately, the Exchange
believes that adding certainty to the execution of orders in these
situations should encourage market participants to continue to provide
liquidity to the Exchange during Limit States and Straddle States, thus
promoting fair and orderly markets.
    The Commission notes, however, that the Exchange has proposed this
rule change based on its expectations about the quality of the options
market during Limit States and Straddle States. In Amendment No. 1, the
Exchange stated, for example, that it believes that application of the
obvious and catastrophic error rules would be impracticable given the
potential for lack of a reliable NBBO in the options market during
Limit States and Straddle States. Given the Exchange's recognition of
the potential for unreliable NBBOs in the options markets during Limit
States and Straddle States, the Commission is concerned about the
extent to which investors may rely to their detriment on the quality of
quotations and price discovery in the options markets during these
periods. This concern is heightened by the Exchange's proposal to
exclude trades that occur during a Limit State or Straddle State from
the obvious error or catastrophic error review procedures pursuant to
Rules 975NY(a) or 975NY(d). The Commission urges investors and market
professionals to exercise caution when considering trading options
under these circumstances. Broker-dealers also should be mindful of
their obligations to customers that may or may not be aware of specific
options market conditions or the underlying stock market conditions
when placing their orders.
    While the Commission remains concerned about the quality of the
options market during the Limit and Straddle States, and the potential
impact on investors of executing in this market without the protections
of the obvious or catastrophic error rules that are being suspended
during the Limit and Straddle States, it believes that certain aspects
of the proposal could help mitigate those concerns.
    First, despite the removal of obvious and catastrophic error
protection during Limit States and Straddle States, the Exchange states
that there are additional measures in place designed to protect
investors. For example, the Exchange states that by rejecting market
orders and stop orders, and cancelling pending market orders and stop
orders, only those orders with a limit price will be executed during a
Limit State or Straddle State. Additionally, the

Exchange notes the existence of SEC Rule 15c3-5 requiring broker-
dealers to have controls and procedures in place that are reasonably
designed to prevent the entry of erroneous orders. Finally, with
respect to limit orders that will be executable during Limit States and
Straddle States, the Exchange states that it applies price checks to
limit orders that are priced sufficiently far through the NBBO.
Therefore, on balance, the Exchange believes that removing the
potential inequity of nullifying or adjusting executions occurring
during Limit States or Straddle States outweighs any potential benefits
from applying certain provisions during such unusual market conditions.
    The Exchange also believes that the aspect of the proposed rule
change that will continue to allow the Exchange to review on its own
motion electronic trades that occur during a Limit State or a Straddle
State is consistent with the Act because it would provide flexibility
for the Exchange to act when necessary and appropriate to nullify or
adjust a transaction and will enable the Exchange to account for
unforeseen circumstances that result in obvious or catastrophic errors
for which a nullification or adjustment may be necessary in order to
preserve the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for
the protection of investors. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange
represents that it recognizes that this provision is limited and that
it will administer the provision in a manner that is consistent with
the principles of the Act. In addition, the Exchange represents that it
will create and maintain records relating to the use of the authority
to act on its own motion during a Limit State or Straddle State.
    Finally, the Exchange has proposed that the changes be implemented
on a one year pilot basis. The Commission believes that it is important
to implement the proposal as a pilot. The one year pilot period will
allow the Exchange time to assess the impact of the Plan on the options
marketplace and allow the Commission to further evaluate the effect of
the proposal prior to any proposal or determination to make the changes
permanent. To this end, pursuant to Amendment No. 1, the Exchange has
committed to: (1) Evaluate the options market quality during Limit
States and Straddle States; (2) assess the character of incoming order
flow and transactions during Limit States and Straddle States; and (3)
review any complaints from members and their customers concerning
executions during Limit States and Straddle States. Additionally, the
Exchange has agreed to provide to the Commission with data requested to
evaluate the impact of the elimination of the obvious error rule,
including data relevant to assessing the various analyses noted above.
On April 5, 2013, NYSE Euronext submitted a letter on behalf of the
Exchange, stating that the Exchange will provide specific data to the
Commission and the public and certain analysis to the Commission to
evaluate the impact of Limit States and Straddle States on liquidity
and market quality in the options markets.\31\ This will allow the
Commission, the Exchange, and other interested parties to evaluate the
quality of the options markets during Limit States and Straddle States
and to assess whether the additional protections noted by the Exchange
are sufficient safeguards against the submission of erroneous trades,
and whether the Exchange's proposal appropriately balances the
protection afforded to an erroneous order sender against the potential
hazards associated with providing market participants additional time
to review trades submitted during a Limit State or Straddle State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In particular, the Exchange represented that, at least two
months prior to the end of the one year pilot period of proposed
Rule 953.1NY(c), it would provide to the Commission an evaluation of
(i) the statistical and economic impact of Straddle States on
liquidity and market quality in the options market and (ii) whether
the lack of obvious error rules in effect during the Limit States
and Straddle States are problematic. In addition, the Exchange
represented that each month following the adoption of the proposed
rule change it would provide to the Commission and the public a
dataset containing certain data elements for each Limit State and
Straddle State in optionable stocks. The Exchange stated that the
options included in the dataset will be those that meet the
following conditions: (i) The options are more than 20% in the money
(strike price remains greater than 80% of the last stock trade price
for calls and strike price remains greater than 120% of the last
stock trade price for puts when the Limit State or Straddle State is
reached); (ii) the option has at least two trades during the Limit
State or Straddle State; and (iii) the top ten options (as ranked by
overall contract volume on that day) meeting the conditions listed
above. For each of those options affected, each dataset will
include, among other information: Stock symbol, option symbol, time
at the start of the Limit State or Straddle State and an indicator
for whether it is a Limit State or Straddle State. For activity on
the Exchange in the relevant options, the Exchange has agreed to
provide executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-
weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average
quoted depth at the offer, high execution price, low execution
price, number of trades for which a request for review for error was
received during Limit States and Straddle States, an indicator
variable for whether those options outlined above have a price
change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's Limit State or
Straddle State compared to the last available option price as
reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle state (1
if observe 30% and 0 otherwise), and another indicator variable for
whether the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock
leaving the Limit State or Straddle State (or halt if applicable) is
30% away from the price before the start of the Limit State or
Straddle State. See NYSE Letter, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act \32\ for approving the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis. This proposal is related to the Plan, which will
become operative on April 8, 2013, and aspects of the proposal, such as
rejecting market orders and not electing Stop Orders during the Limit
and Straddle States, are designed to prevent such orders from receiving
poor executions during those times.\33\ In granting accelerated
approval, the proposed rule change, and any attendant benefits, will
take effect upon the Plan's implementation date. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that good cause exists for approving the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)
    \33\ See supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\34\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-10) is approved on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).
    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08609 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9816-9817]
[DOCID:fr05mr07-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55345; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-15]

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

February 26, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 13, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NYSE.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 217 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE rule 300 relating to trading
licenses to charge a premium of $5,000, for a total annualized rate of
$55,000 for those trading licenses purchased after the annual
application period.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on NYSE's Web
site at http://www.nyse.com/regulation/rules/1160561784294.html, at

NYSE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 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 proposes to amend NYSE rule 300 relating to trading
licenses to charge a premium for those trading license purchased after
the annual application period. The premium would be $5,000 or 10% above
the fixed price of $50,000 per trading license, pro-rated to reflect
the amount of time remaining in the year at the time of the
commencement of the license. The Exchange believes that there are
benefits to itself and to its member organizations in having a more
stable trading license population during the course of the calendar
year.
    The Exchange previously required payment of a premium to encourage
participation in a ``Dutch'' auction, but recently eliminated this
requirement in connection with its transition away from the use of an
auction to set the price of a trading license.\3\ The Exchange
believes, however, that the requirement of a 10% premium should be
reinstated. The Exchange believes that the 10% premium for licenses
purchased after the annual application period provides the Exchange
with greater predictability regarding the number of trading licenses
outstanding during each calendar year. The Exchange represents that
this predictability not only facilitates business planning and
administration by member organizations and the Exchange, but also
reduces both business and regulatory systems changes required to
reflect fluctuations in trading licenses issued. The Exchange believes
that the premium encouraged member organizations to properly forecast
the number of licenses needed by it in the conduct of its business for
the upcoming calendar year, which in turn helped the Exchange determine
the resources required to administer and monitor trading licenses for
the same period and to efficiently prepare systems changes relating to
any significant changes in the trading license population required for
both business and regulatory purposes. The Exchange believes that the
premium

will also discourage member organizations from surrendering and
requesting licenses on a monthly basis and thereby help reduce month-
by-month changes in the trading license population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54998 (December 21,
2006), 71 FR 78496 (December 29, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is the requirement
under section 6(b)(4) \4\ of the Act that an exchange have rules that
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities
and the requirement under section 6(b)(5) \5\ of the Act that an
exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-15. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2007-15 and should be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3743 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10438-10441]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0841]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulations: Anchorage Grounds, Los Angeles and Long
Beach Harbors, California

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to disestablish Commercial Anchorage
``A'' and to revise the permit and notification requirements for the
anchorage grounds of Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California.
Commercial Anchorage ``A'' has become the location of a Submerged
Material Storage Site and is no longer usable. Revised permit and
notification requirements will affect the six commercial anchorages
within the breakwater of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that
can accommodate vessels with lengths exceeding 800 feet overall and
drafts greater than 40 feet. The proposed revision will require vessels
using these deep draft anchorages for more than 48 hours to obtain an
extended anchorage permit from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los
Angeles-Long Beach. This action will assist the COTP and the Pilots for
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to reduce congestion in the
deep draft anchorage grounds within the harbor breakwater.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0841 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Blake Morris, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard District 11, telephone (510) 437-
3801, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0841 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0841 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

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

B. Regulatory History and Information

    33 CFR 110.214(a)(2) allows vessels to remain anchored for up to 10
consecutive days inside of the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors
before obtaining an extended anchorage permit from the COTP. It does
not offer any special consideration for the six anchorages that can
accommodate vessels with lengths exceeding 800 feet overall and drafts
greater than 40 feet.
    Due to the increasing size of commercial vessels and the growth in
shipping traffic over the years, the anchorage grounds inside the
breakwater of the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors are becoming
increasingly crowded. Vessels with lengths exceeding 800 feet overall
and drafts greater than 40 feet are often compelled to wait outside of
the breakwater while other vessels are moved out of deep draft
anchorages to accommodate them.
    Pilots for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have recommended
that the Coast Guard consider reducing the number of days a vessel may
remain anchored in the six deep draft anchorages of Los Angeles and
Long Beach harbors, without approval of the COTP. This will aid them in
reducing congestion in the deep draft anchorages more effectively.
    33 CFR 110.214(b)(1) establishes Commercial Anchorage ``A'' within
Los Angeles Harbor. Commercial Anchorage ``A'' is a circular area with
a radius of 400 yards, centered in position 33 [deg]43'19.2'' N, 118
[deg]14'18.5'' W. Since its establishment, Commercial Anchorage ``A''
has become a Submerged Material Storage Site. It is now encircled by a
submerged dike and is no longer usable.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this proposed rule is: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221
through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize
the Coast Guard to define anchorage grounds.
    This proposed rule has been recommended by Pilots for the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach and has three purposes. The first purpose is
to disestablish Commercial Anchorage ``A'', as it is no longer usable.
The second purpose is to identify commercial anchorages B-7, B-9, B-11,
D-5, D-6 and D-7 as anchorages that can accommodate vessels with
lengths exceeding 800 feet overall and drafts greater than 40 feet
within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The final purpose of
this proposed rule is to revise the permit and notification
requirements for the six anchorages above, by requiring vessels
anchored in these anchorages for more than 48 consecutive hours, to
obtain an extended anchorage permit from the COTP. This will reduce
congestion in the deep draft anchorages within the breakwater of both
ports, and reduce the need for deep draft vessels to wait outside the
breakwater as other vessels are moved to accommodate them.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish Commercial Anchorage
``A'' in the regulations for the anchorage grounds of Los Angeles and
Long Beach Harbors, California in 33 CFR 110.214(b)(1). Commercial
Anchorage ``A'' is a circular area with a radius of 400 yards, centered
in position 33[deg]43'19.2'' N, 118[deg]14'18.5'' W, approximately 600
yards to the east of Pier 400. Since its establishment, Commercial
Anchorage ``A'' has become a Submerged Material Storage Site. It is now
encircled by a submerged dike and can no longer be used as an
anchorage.
    The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the permit and notification
requirements in the regulations for the anchorage grounds of Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California in 33 CFR 110.214(a)(2).
Under the proposed rule, no vessel may anchor in deep draft anchorages
B-7, B-9, B-11, D-5, D-6 or D-7 within Los Angeles or Long Beach
harbors for more than 48 consecutive hours unless an extended anchorage
permit is obtained from the COTP. These anchorages are the only
locations within the breakwater of Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors
where vessels with lengths exceeding 800 feet overall and drafts
greater than 40 feet can anchor.
    The purpose of the 48 hour time requirement is to reduce vessel
congestion in deep draft anchorages B-7, B-9, B-11, D-5, D-6 and D-7.
Vessels within these anchorages will be required to justify remaining
there beyond 48 hours to the COTP, or be prepared to move based on the
needs of other vessels and the judgment of the Pilots for the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach. Limiting congestion in these anchorages
will reduce the need for deep draft vessels to wait outside of the
breakwater while other vessels are moved from the inside deep draft
anchorages. As shipping volume and the size of vessels making calls to
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach continue to grow, maintaining
anchorage space for deep draft vessels within the shelter of the
breakwater is becoming increasingly important.
    The proposed rule maintains the requirement for all vessels that
anchor anywhere else within Los Angeles or Long Beach harbors to obtain
an extended anchorage permit from the COTP if they wish to remain
anchored for more than 10 consecutive days. In determining whether an
extended anchorage permit will be granted (for vessels in any
anchorage), consideration will be given, but not necessarily limited
to: the current and anticipated demands for anchorage space within the
harbor, the requested duration, the condition of the vessel, and the
reason for the request.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We expect minimal additional cost impacts to the maritime industry,
because this rule does not impose fees or more specialized requirements
to utilize these anchorage grounds. The effect of this rule would not
be significant, as it removes an obsolete anchorage ground that is no
longer used and revises the permit and notification requirements for
six of the deep draft anchorage grounds in Los Angeles and Long Beach
Harbors, California. The revised permit and notification requirements
do not restrict vessels from utilizing these deep draft anchorages.
They will simply require

vessels in these anchorages to obtain permission from the COTP to
remain longer than 48 hours. While we recognize that the proposed rule
will shorten the amount of time that a vessel may remain in the deep
draft anchorages for B-7, B-9, B-11, D-5, D-6 and D-7 from 10 days to
48 hours before being required to obtain an extended anchorage permit
from the COTP and may also increase the number of times that a vessel
operator may be required to obtain an extended anchorage permit, we
anticipate this 48-hour notice requirement will not have a have
significant impact on vessel owners or operators. We further anticipate
the 48 hour requirement will provide the pilots and COTP with more
accurate and more up-to-date information on vessel movements and will
help reduce the need to move vessels out of deep draft anchorages on
short notice. This will also assist in minimizing the number of deep
draft vessels waiting outside of the breakwater while other vessels are
moved from these anchorages to accommodate them. The COTP and pilots
for Los Angeles and Long Beach retain their authority to move any
vessel inside the breakwater when necessary.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial
vessels intending to anchor in the affected areas. The impact to these
entities is not expected to be significant because the only anticipated
impact on vessel owners or operators will be the requirement to obtain
an extended anchorage permit if they wish to remain in the deep draft
anchorages for more than 48 hours. We expect this 48 hour notice
requirement will help toward reducing the need to move vessels out of
these deep draft anchorages by providing better awareness of vessel
schedules and movements to pilots and the COTP. The proposed rule will
reduce congestion, enhance the effectiveness of anchorage management,
and increase the availability of deep draft anchorages. It will not
hamper the ability of commercial vessels to anchor inside of the Los
Angeles and Long Beach harbor breakwater. Disestablishing Commercial
Anchorage ``A'' will have no affect on these entities because the
anchorage area is no longer usable and has not been for some time.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did

not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves
disestablishing one unusable anchorage ground and revising the permit
and notification requirements for six deep draft anchorage grounds at
Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California. The revised
requirements will assist the COTP and the pilot stations for the Ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach in managing anchorages inside the harbor
breakwater. This rule is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A
preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  110.214, remove and reserve paragraph (b)(1) and revise
paragraph (a)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.214  Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) No vessel may anchor in deep draft anchorages B-7, B-9, B-11,
D-5, D-6 or D-7 within Los Angeles or Long Beach harbors for more than
48 consecutive hours unless an extended anchorage permit is obtained
from the Captain of the Port. No vessel may anchor anywhere else within
Los Angeles or Long Beach harbors for more than 10 consecutive days
unless an extended anchorage permit is obtained from the Captain of the
Port. In determining whether an extended anchorage permit will be
granted, consideration will be given, but not necessarily limited to:
the current and anticipated demands for anchorage space within the
harbor, the requested duration, the condition of the vessel, and the
reason for the request.
* * * * *

    Dated: December 24, 2013.
K. L. Schultz,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-03469 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69921-69922]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-1144-000.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: Annual Penalty Disbursement Report of LA Storage, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230929-5356.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-9-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Summary of Negotiated Rate
Capacity Release Agreements 10-2-2023 to be effective 10/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20231002-5246.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-10-000.
    Applicants: Spire STL Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Spire STL Pipeline Annual LAUF
Filing to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20231002-5250.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-11-000.
    Applicants: Sabine Pipe Line LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Normal filing 2023--7.26-4.4
to be effective 10/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20231002-5257.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-12-000.
    Applicants: Roaring Fork Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual FL&U Reimbursement
Percentage Filing to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20231002-5297.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-13-000.
    Applicants: Spire STL Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Spire STL NRA Filing to be
effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20231002-5321.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-14-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Vitol Inc. R-7495-14 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20231003-5017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-15-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Vitol Inc. R-7495-15 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20231003-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-16-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Vitol Inc. R-7495-16 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20231003-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-17-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Freepoint Commodities LLC R-7250-46 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20231003-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-18-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Freepoint Commodities LLC R-7250-47 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20231003-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-19-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Freepoint Commodities LLC R-7250-48 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 10/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20231003-5035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR21-18-001.
    Applicants: Houston Pipe Line Company LP.
    Description: Houston Pipe Line Company LP Certification of Unchg
Rates to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 10/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20231003-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful

public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can
help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice
communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available
information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and
assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or
requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at
(202) 502-6595 or [email protected].

    Dated: October 3, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22401 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P