[Federal Register: March 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 10334-10339]
[DOCID:fr10mr09-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59488; File No. SR-NYSEALTR-2009-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Alternext US LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
Amending Rule 123C To Provide the Exchange With the Ability To
Temporarily Suspend Certain Exchange Requirements Relating to the
Closing of Securities at the Exchange

March 3, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 20, 2009, NYSE Alternext US LLC (``Exchange''
or ``NYSE Alternext'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. On March 2, 2009, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended,
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C to provide the Exchange
with the ability to temporarily suspend certain Exchange requirements
relating to the closing of securities at the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://
www.nyse.com, the Exchange, and the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 123C--NYSE Alternext
Equities to provide the Exchange with the ability to temporarily
suspend certain rule requirements at the close when extreme order
imbalances may cause significant dislocation to the closing price. The
amendments proposed for Rule 123C--NYSE Alternext Equities are similar
in substance [to] current Rule 48 extreme market volatility condition
at the close provisions. With this rule filing, the Exchange proposes
to delete those provisions from Rule 48 and add them in modified form
to Rule 123C. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 48(c)(2) to
conform the rule to the actual

practice of how the Exchange notifies the Commission staff when a Rule
48 condition has been declared.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to amend Rules
48 and 123C--NYSE Alternext Equities to conform with proposed
amendments to corresponding NYSE Rules 48 and 123C submitted in a
companion filing by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''). See
SR-NYSE-2009-18, formally submitted February 19, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    As described more fully in a related rule filing,\5\ NYSE Euronext
acquired The Amex Membership Corporation (``AMC'') pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 17, 2008 (the ``Merger'').
In connection with the Merger, the Exchange's predecessor, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary
of NYSE Euronext and was renamed NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC (``NYSE
Alternext'' or the ``Exchange''), and continues to operate as a
national securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').\6\ The
effective date of the Merger was October 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex
2008-62) (approving the Merger).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the Merger, on December 1, 2008, the Exchange
relocated all equities trading conducted on the Exchange legacy trading
systems and facilities located at 86 Trinity Place, New York, New York,
to trading systems and facilities located at 11 Wall Street, New York,
New York (the ``Equities Relocation''). The Exchange's equity trading
systems and facilities at 11 Wall Street (the ``NYSE Alternext Trading
Systems'') are operated by the NYSE on behalf of the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex 2008-63) (approving
the Equities Relocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Equities Relocation, NYSE Alternext adopted NYSE
Rules 1-1004, subject to such changes as necessary to apply the Rules
to the Exchange, as the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules to govern trading
on the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems.\8\ The NYSE Alternext Equities
Rules, which became operative on December 1, 2008, are substantially
identical to the current NYSE Rules 1-1004 and the Exchange continues
to update the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules as necessary to conform
with rule changes to corresponding NYSE Rules filed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex 2008-63); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58833 (October 22, 2008), 73 FR 64642
(October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-106); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 58839 (October 23, 2008), 73 FR 64645 (October 30, 2008)
(SR-NYSEALTR-2008-03); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59022
(November 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (December 3, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-
2008-10); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59027 (November
28, 2008), 73 FR 73681 (December 3, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Rule 48--NYSE Alternext Equities
    Rule 48--NYSE Alternext Equities provides the Exchange with the
ability to suspend certain rules at the close when extremely high
market volatility could negatively affect the ability to ensure a fair
and orderly close. This provision of Rule 48 is temporary and will end
on March 27, 2009.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 48.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 48 now includes the close of trading as a time when a
qualified Exchange officer would be permitted to declare an extreme
market volatility condition. In such event, the Exchange could
temporarily suspend Rules 52 (Hours of Operation) and 123C(1) and (2)
(Market on the Close Policy and Expiration Policy), provided that
certain requirements are met.
    To enable a qualified Exchange officer to declare a Rule 48
condition at the close, Rule 48(c) includes that a qualified Exchange
officer may consider the volatility during that day's trading session
and evidence of significant order imbalances across the market at the
close for purposes of determining whether to declare an extreme market
volatility condition at the close. Under Rule 48, an extreme market
volatility condition at the close is a separate event and must be
considered in light of the facts and circumstances leading to the
close. A Rule 48 condition at the open of trading does not extend to
the close; a qualified Exchange officer needs to make an independent
determination to invoke Rule 48 at the close regardless of whether Rule
48 was invoked at the open. Such a Rule 48 condition at the close must
be declared by a qualified Exchange officer before the scheduled close
of trading.
    Once an extreme market volatility condition at the close has been
declared Floor wide, under Rule 48(b)(2)(A), the Exchange may
temporarily suspend Rule 52 on a security-by-security basis so that
interest can be solicited and entered into Exchange systems to offset
an imbalance in a security that may be present after the scheduled
close of trading. During an extreme market volatility condition,
interest may be solicited--including interest that may not have been
present prior to 4 p.m.--to offset any imbalance that may exist as of 4
p.m. (or earlier, in the case of an earlier scheduled close).\10\ If
offsetting interest is received in response to such solicitation,
rather than have the DMM represent such offsetting interest in the
close pursuant to Rule 902, such interest could be entered by the DMM
directly into Exchange systems on behalf of the member or member
organization representing such interest. Because Exchange systems do
not allow for the electronic entry of orders after 4 p.m., such
interest must be represented manually by a Floor broker in the closing
auction process and entered into Exchange systems by the DMM by no
later than 4 p.m.\11\ The entry of any orders after 4 p.m. pursuant to
the rule must be under the supervision and approval of a Floor
Governor.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 48(b)(2)(A)(i).
    \11\ See Rule 48(b)(2)(A)(ii).
    \12\ See Rule 48(b)(2)(A)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure a complete audit trail, any offsetting interest entered
after 4 p.m. during an extreme market volatility condition must also be
entered into the Front End Systemic Capture database (``FESC''), as
required by Rule 123--NYSE Alternext Equities. Because such interest
may not have been known until after 4 p.m., under Rule
48(b)(2)(A)(iii), a Floor broker may represent such offsetting interest
after 4 p.m. without first entering the details of the order into FESC,
as required by Rule 123, so long as such orders are entered into FESC
on an ``as of'' basis immediately following execution of the order.
    During an extreme market volatility condition at the close, the
Exchange also has the ability to temporarily suspend, on a security-by-
security basis, the Rule 123C(1) and (2) requirements that MOC and LOC
orders that are legitimate errors cannot be cancelled or reduced after
3:50 p.m. Under Rule 48(b)(2)(B), only an erroneous MOC or LOC that
would cause significant closing price dislocation for a particular
security could be considered for cancellation. In other words, an MOC
or LOC order that is as a result of a legitimate error that would have
no impact on the closing price could not take advantage of the proposed
temporary suspension, even in an extreme market volatility condition.
If it is determined that such an MOC/LOC legitimate error would
significantly dislocate the close, such order can be cancelled or
reduced at any time up until that particular security has closed. To
further ensure that the ability to cancel an MOC or LOC order after
3:50 is not abused, under Rule 48(b)(2)(B)(iii), such an order can be
cancelled or reduced only with the supervision and approval of both an
Executive Floor Governor and a

qualified Exchange officer. In the event an Executive Floor Governor is
not available, a Floor Governor's approval must be obtained.
Proposed Amendments to Rule 123C--NYSE Alternext Equities
    The Exchange believes that the temporary provisions to Rule 48
provide the Exchange with invaluable tools to ensure a fair and orderly
close during extreme situations. However, the Exchange does not believe
that a Floor-wide condition needs to be present in order to warrant the
use of these tools. The Exchange therefore proposes to adopt the
amendments to Rule 48 on a permanent basis by deleting those provisions
from Rule 48 and moving them to Rule 123C--NYSE Alternext Equities. As
part of the amendments to Rule 123C, the Exchange further proposes
modifying the terms of the temporary suspensions by permitting the
Exchange to invoke such relief on a security-by-security basis without
first declaring a Floor-wide extreme market volatility condition and
codifying certain practices for the entry of orders after 4 p.m.

A. Relocating Temporary Suspensions to Rule 123C

    As noted above, the Rule 48 extreme market volatility at the close
conditions are temporary and will end on March 27, 2009. Under current
Rule 48, the Exchange must first declare a Floor-wide extreme market
volatility condition before it can consider, on a security-by-security
basis, whether to temporarily suspend either Rule 52 or Rule 123C(1) or
(2). Because the temporary suspensions are already granted on a
security-by-security basis, the Exchange does not believe that going
forward it needs to first declare a Floor-wide event in order to
provide relief on an individual security basis. Indeed, the need for
declaring a Floor-wide extreme market volatility condition before 4
p.m. could hamper the ability of the Exchange to invoke the temporary
suspensions when they are needed most.
    For example, during normal market conditions that would not
otherwise warrant a Rule 48 condition at the close, Exchange systems
may receive a large market order in a security at 3:59:59 p.m. Such a
large order entered so near to the close could cause the type of
extreme imbalance that would merit a temporary suspension of Rule 52,
yet such relief would be unavailable because overall market conditions
did not require a Rule 48 condition. The Exchange therefore believes
that the ability to temporarily suspend rules at the close should be
part of Rule 123C--NYSE Alternext Equities, which governs the closing
process at the Exchange, and be available on a security-by-security
basis, even after 4 p.m.\13\ The Exchange therefore proposes deleting
the extreme market volatility at the close condition from Rule 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 123C(8)(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In deleting the provisions of Rule 48 condition at the close and
moving those temporary suspensions to Rule 123C, the Exchange proposes
certain modifications to the application of the temporary suspensions.
These modifications are designed to provide clarity of how this tool
should be used. Namely, the ability to temporarily suspend Exchange
rules at the close should be used sparingly and only in extreme
situations.
    The Exchange therefore proposes to qualify that temporary
suspensions under proposed Rule 123C(8) are intended to be used to
prevent a closing price dislocation that may result from an order
entered into Exchange systems, or represented to a DMM orally at or
near the close, that may result in an extreme order imbalance at or
near the close.\14\ In such case, as with Rule 48, the rules that may
be suspended are Rule 52--NYSE Alternext Equities (Hours of Operation)
and Rules 123C(1) and (2)--NYSE Alternext Equities (Market on the Close
Policy and Expiration Policy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Rule 123C(8)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Temporary Suspension of Rule 52--NYSE Alternext Equities

    As with Rule 48, the Exchange proposes to provide for the ability
to temporarily suspend Rule 52 for the sole purpose of allowing the
entry of orders after 4 p.m. to offset an extreme order imbalance at
the close. As proposed, the process replaces the more cumbersome Rule
902 process, whereby the DMM represents interest on behalf of a Floor
broker in the close on a riskless basis and then enters a coupled order
in Crossing Session I to liquidate the DMM position taken on behalf of
the Floor broker.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rules 902(a)(ii)(B) and 903(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the temporary suspension of Rule 52, the Exchange
proposes to adopt without change the language of Rule 48(b)(2)(A)(i)
and (iii) (proposed as Rule 123C(8)(a)(1)(i) and (v)). These provisions
concern, respectively, the purpose of soliciting orders after 4 p.m.
and the use of the FESC system on an ``as of'' basis following
execution of an order.
    The Exchange proposes to codify as Rule 123C(8)(a)(1)(ii) that when
soliciting orders to offset an imbalance in a security that may exist
after 4 p.m., such interest will be solicited from off-Floor
participants directly and via their Floor broker representatives.\16\
Such solicitation requests shall be transmitted electronically both
off-Floor and on-Floor and shall include, at a minimum, information
about the security symbol, the imbalance amount and side, the last sale
price, and an order acceptance cut-off time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Interest is solicited from off-Floor participants via NYSE
Trader Update Messages, which is an NYSE product with over 2,000
subscribers that provides a wide range of up-to-the minute notices
of particular interest to the professional trading community about
both NYSE and NYSE Alternext Equities. NYSE Trader Updates provide
messages both via email and on an RSS subscription basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the order acceptance cut-off time included in the
solicitation request would be a time period designated by the Exchange.
Because the goal is to close Exchange-listed securities as close to the
closing bell as possible, such time period will generally be no longer
than five minutes. As in Rule 48(b)(2)(A)(ii), in no event shall the
order acceptance cut-off time be later than 4:30 p.m. (or 30 minutes
after the scheduled close in the case of an earlier scheduled close).
The Exchange includes this 4:30 p.m. time period as an outside limit
and it is not intended to provide a 30-minute window within which to
receive offsetting interest, or that the Exchange seeks to close
securities at 4:30 p.m. Rather, as proposed, if a solicitation request
is transmitted at 4:02 p.m., the Exchange generally would include an
order acceptance cut-off time of five minutes, requiring all offsetting
interest to be received by 4:07 p.m. so that the DMM can close the
security on or about 4:07 p.m. In the rare circumstance that a
solicitation request is not transmitted until 4:27 p.m., the order
acceptance cut-off time would be 4:30 p.m., and not a five-minute
period. The 4:30 p.m. end time is therefore included to ensure that
this proposed temporary suspension of Rule 52 would not be used to
extend the close indefinitely.
    The Exchange also proposes adding conditions on the type of order
that may be entered in response to such a solicitation request. As
proposed in Rule 123C(8)(a)(1)(iii), any offsetting interest received
in response to a solicitation request must be a limit order priced no
worse than the last sale and irrevocable. Therefore, if there is a buy
imbalance, the offsetting interest must be sell orders priced no lower
than the last sale price, or if there is a sell imbalance, the
offsetting interest must be buy orders priced no higher than the

last sale price. The Exchange believes that these conditions are
necessary to ensure that the offsetting interest received is simply
that: interest that is intended to offset the existing imbalance to
ensure that the closing price is not too far dislocated from the last
sale. The Exchange does not believe that this process should be used to
re-open the auction market or to permit the imbalance to swing in the
opposite direction.
    The Exchange also proposes to add to the rule certain parameters
regarding the timing of the closing of a security when such offsetting
interest is solicited. As proposed in Rule 123C(8)(a)(1)(iv), in such
circumstances, the DMM should close the security the earlier of the
order acceptance cut-off time or if the imbalance is paired off at or
reasonably contiguous to the last sale price. The Exchange believes
that this provision will enable the DMM to arrange for a fair and
orderly close that is as close to 4 p.m. as possible. For example, if
the Exchange receives a limited response to the solicitation request,
the DMM would have up to the order acceptance cut-off time for orders
to be entered. If, however, the DMM receives sufficient interest before
the order acceptance cut-off time to close the security either at the
last sale price, or at a reasonably contiguous price to the last sale
price, the DMM could close the security earlier. As proposed, a
reasonably contiguous price refers to a price point that is within
cents of the last sale price, and would be a price point that during a
regular closing auction would not be considered a dislocating closing
price as compared to the last sale price. As discussed in more detail
below in subsection D, such closings would be subject to approval of
either an Executive Floor Governor or qualified NYSE Euronext staff
employee and supervision of a qualified Exchange Officer, as defined in
Rule 48(d).
    The Exchange believes that the parameters on when to close the
security are necessary to ensure that securities trading at the
Exchange close as near to 4 p.m. as possible, notwithstanding the fact
that the Exchange seeks additional offsetting interest after 4 p.m. In
either case, the Exchange proposes that any offsetting interest entered
after 4 p.m., but before the DMM closes the security, would trade on
parity.\17\ As discussed in greater detail in the NYSE's proposal to
adopt the Next Generation Market Model,\18\ under the Exchange's parity
model, Exchange systems will divide the size of the executing order by
the number of participants. The DMM and each Floor broker are each
considered a single participant. A Floor broker that represents
multiple orders gets parity for the aggregate of orders. With parity,
the total number of shares to be allocated to each participant will be
distributed equally among the participants where possible and
executions will be allocated in round lots. In the event the number of
shares to be executed at the price point is insufficient to allocate
round lots to all the participants eligible to receive an execution at
the price point, the Exchange systems will create an allocation wheel
of the eligible participants at the price point and the available
shares will be distributed to the participants in turn. If the DMM
closes the security before the order acceptance cut-off time, any
interest received before closing the security would trade on parity
with other interest, including the DMM's interest at the close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes that all MOC and marketable LOC orders
entered before 4:00 p.m. that otherwise would have participated in
the close will continue to participate in the close. Because the
MOC/LOC imbalance dictates the closing price (see Rule 123C(3)), any
additional interest solicited after 4:00 p.m. under proposed Rule
123C(8)(a)(1) is simply to ensure that the existing imbalance of MOC
and marketable LOC orders can be filled at a price that does not
cause a significant price dislocation from the last sale price.
    \18\ See SEC Release No. 58845 (Oct. 24, 2008), 73 FR 64379
(Oct. 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to maintain, as in Rule 48(b)(2)(A)(ii),
that any offsetting interest must be represented by a Floor broker.
Exchange systems do not have the capability to receive electronic
interest after 4 p.m. As with any technology, it would be possible to
reconfigure Exchange systems to accept orders electronically after 4
p.m. However, such technology changes would be costly and would divert
resources away from other necessary technology changes that are already
scheduled. Therefore, even if the Exchange could make such technology
changes, they likely could not be implemented until mid to late 2009,
and at great cost.
    The benefit, however, to implementing such a technology change
would be limited. The temporary suspension of Rule 52 to attract
offsetting interest is intended to be used for extreme, and likely rare
circumstances where there exists such a large imbalance at the close
that the DMM could not close the security without significantly
dislocating the price of the security. The Exchange notes that this has
been a period of historic market volatility; the Exchange therefore
expects that in times of calmer markets, the relief requested would be
used in even rarer circumstances.
    The Exchange further notes that requiring Floor brokers to
represent such offsetting interest does not unfairly discriminate
against any market participants. The requirement to use a Floor broker,
who would be acting only as an agent, does not deny anyone access to
trading at the Exchange. It simply requires an agent as intermediary.
Indeed, during the inherently manual process of closing a security,
using a Floor broker to represent offsetting interest will provide
customers with the most up-to-date information about the closing
process in such a scenario.
    Moreover, the imbalance that would warrant such a temporary
suspension would likely be of such a size that the type of customers
that would be able to meaningfully and timely respond to such a
solicitation request are sophisticated market participants who likely
already have, or could easily arrange for, a relationship with a Floor
broker to represent orders on their behalf. Such sophisticated
participants have the wherewithal to enter into arrangements with Floor
brokers that are financially competitive with entering orders directly
into Exchange systems, e.g., via reduced commissions or pass through of
Floor broker rebates.
    The Exchange therefore believes that the time and cost that would
be necessary to reconfigure Exchange systems to electronically accept
orders after 4 p.m. for this limited purpose far outweighs any benefit
that may accrue from such technology changes. In any event, the
Exchange believes that more information is necessary before the
Exchange undertakes to implement any such technology change. The
Exchange therefore proposes that six months after the approval of this
proposed rule change, the Exchange will provide the Commission with
information regarding how many times a Rule 52 temporary suspension
under proposed Rule 123C(8)(a)(1) has been invoked. At that time, both
the Exchange and the Commission can make a more informed decision of
whether the benefit in accepting orders electronically after 4 p.m.
outweighs the costs associated with making such changes. To provide
both the Exchange and the Commission with time to evaluate the proposed
rule, the Exchange proposes that Rule 123C(8)(a)(1) be approved on a
Pilot basis to end six months after the approval date of this filing.

C. Temporary Suspension of Rule 123C(1) and (2)

    The Exchange proposes to adopt permanently the provisions of Rule
48(b)(2)(B) as proposed Rule 123C(8)(a)(2), without any change.
Therefore, as with Rule 48, the Exchange would have the ability to
temporarily suspend, on a security-by-security basis, the Rule 123C(1)
and (2) requirements that MOC and LOC orders that are legitimate errors
cannot be cancelled or reduced after 3:50 p.m. The same conditions that
were adopted as part of Rule 48 would apply here as well, i.e. , that
only an erroneous MOC or LOC that would cause significant closing price
dislocation for a particular security could be considered for
cancellation and that if it is determined that such an MOC/LOC
legitimate error would dislocate the close, such order can be cancelled
or reduced at any time up until that particular security has closed. As
discussed below, the Exchange proposes to move Rule 48(b)(2)(B)(iii) to
proposed Rule 123C(8)(b).

D. Parameters for Obtaining Temporary Rule Suspensions

    The Exchange further proposes codifying the practices concerning
how a temporary suspension under proposed Rule 123C(8)(a) would be
invoked and who should be involved. As proposed in Rule 123C(8)(b),
only the DMM assigned to a particular security may request a temporary
suspension under proposed section 8(a) of the Rule. The Exchange
believes that because the DMM is responsible for facilitating the close
of trading of securities registered to that DMM, including supplying
liquidity if needed, the DMM is in the unique position to know whether
he or she would need additional interest to ensure a fair or orderly
close.
    To ensure that such temporary suspensions are not invoked
indiscriminately, the Exchange further proposes that any such
determination, as well as any entry or cancellation of orders or
closing of a security under proposed Rule 123C(8)(a), must be approved
by either an Executive Floor Governor or a qualified NYSE Euronext
employee, as defined in Rule 46(b)(v)--NYSE Alternext Equities. The
Exchange also proposes requiring that any temporary suspensions under
proposed Rule 123C(8)(a) should be under the supervision of a qualified
Exchange Officer, as defined in Rule 48(d).
    These requirements are identical to the requirement under Rule
48(b)(2)(B)(iii), but more stringent than the current requirement under
Rule 48(b)(2)(A)(iv), which requires only the supervision of a Floor
Governor. The Exchange believes that these heightened approval and
supervision requirements will ensure that, as contemplated by the
proposed rule, only extreme situations such as when a late-arriving
order would cause significant price dislocation at the close would
result in a temporary suspension of Exchange rules at the close. To
assist the DMM and officials, proposed Rule 123C(8)(b) identifies a
number of factors that may be considered when making such a
determination. Such factors include, but are not limited to, when the
order(s) that impacted the imbalance were entered into Exchange systems
or orally represented to the DMM, the impact of such order(s) on the
closing price of the security, the volatility of the security during
the trading session, and the ability of the DMM to commit capital to
dampen the price dislocation.
Proposed Amendment to Rule 48(c)(2)--NYSE Alternext Equities
    In addition to the above-described amendments, the Exchange also
proposes to amend Rule 48(c)(2), which concerns the method by which the
Exchange notifies Commission staff when it declares a Rule 48 extreme
market volatility condition.
    The current rule provides that the qualified Exchange officer will
make a reasonable effort to consult with Commission staff before
declaring an extreme market volatility condition and granting a
suspension of the Exchange rules or procedures. In the event that the
qualified Exchange officer cannot reach the Commission staff, the
qualified Exchange officer will, as promptly as practicable in the
circumstances, inform the Commission staff of such declaration.
    Given the limited relief that can be granted during a Rule 48
condition--certain Floor Official approvals are suspended and mandatory
indications can be suspended--the Exchange believes that the
requirement to consult with Commission staff before declaring an
extreme market volatility condition imposes an undue burden on
regulatory resources. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
48(c)(2) to delete the requirement that the qualified Exchange officer
undertake reasonable efforts to consult with Commission staff before
declaring an extreme market volatility condition. As required by the
rule, the Exchange will continue to inform the Commission staff, as
promptly as practicable under the circumstances, when it has declared a
Rule 48 extreme market volatility condition.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \19\ that an Exchange have rules that
are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. As noted above, the proposed rule is
intended to be used in extreme circumstances when a large order
imbalance or order entered in error could cause a closing price to be
far dislocated from the last sale price. The rule is therefore intended
to protect investors and the public interest to ensure that the closing
price at the Exchange is not significantly dislocated from the last
sale price by virtue of an extreme order imbalance at or near the
close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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 will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    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
     Please include File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-15 on the subject
line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-15. 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, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-15 and should
be submitted on or before March 31, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4963 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31097-31100]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1113; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00893-T;
Amendment 39-21580; AD 2021-11-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-03-
10, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes; and
Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model
A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600
series airplanes). AD 2019-03-10 required repetitive detailed visual
inspections of the main landing gear (MLG) leg components and
replacement of the MLG leg if cracked components are found. This AD
continues to require the actions required by AD 2019-03-10. For certain
airplanes, this AD also requires modification of the MLG hinge arm by
installing improved MLG hinge arm/barrel pins; an out-of-roundness
check of removed pins; repetitive inspections of any affected pins and
the associated connecting rod bushes, and replacement of the MLG leg if
cracked components are found; and installation of an improved spacer;
as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD,
which is incorporated by reference. This AD was prompted by reports of
cracks in MLG leg components and a determination that additional
actions (including inspections, modifications, and checks) are needed
to address the unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 16, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 16,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this

IBR material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    For Safran material that will be IBR in this AD, contact Safran
Landing Systems, One Carbon Way, Walton, KY 41094; telephone 859-525-
8583; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.safran-landing-systems.com.
    You may view this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-1113.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
1113; 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, 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0145, dated July 1, 2020 (EASA
AD 2020-0145) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300-600 series
airplanes; and Model A300F4-608ST airplanes. EASA AD 2020-0145
supersedes EASA AD 2018-0170, dated August 6, 2018 (which corresponds
to FAA AD 2019-03-10, Amendment 39-19562 (84 FR 5595, February 22,
2019) (AD 2019-03-10)). Model A300F4-608ST airplanes are not
certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-03-10. AD 2019-03-10 applied to all
Airbus SAS Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on December 8, 2020 (85 FR 78971). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of cracks in MLG leg components, and a
determination that additional actions (including inspections,
modifications, and out-of-roundness checks) are needed to address the
unsafe condition. The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions
required by AD 2019-03-10. For certain airplanes, this AD also requires
modification of the MLG hinge arm by installing improved MLG hinge arm/
barrel pins; an out-of-roundness check of removed pins; repetitive
inspections of any affected pins and the associated connecting rod
bushes, and replacement of the MLG leg if cracked components are found;
and installation of an improved spacer; as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking of certain
components in the MLG leg, which could result in an MLG collapse, and
consequent damage to the airplane and injury to the airplane occupants.
See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and an
anonymous commenter indicated support for the NPRM.

Request To Clarify Inspection Threshold for Certain Airplanes

    United Parcel Service (UPS Airlines) asked that the proposed AD be
revised to add a statement to clarify that the general visual
inspection (GVI) for Group 2 airplanes begins within 30 months after
the effective date of the FAA AD. UPS Airlines stated that it has been
accomplishing Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6120 at gear overhaul,
which replaces the old hinge arm barrel pin with a new hinge arm barrel
pin, prior to release of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6121. UPS
Airlines further pointed out that Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6121
was released after Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6120 (pin
replacement), and added installation of a new spacer during gear
overhaul. UPS Airlines added that EASA AD 2020-0145 does not have clear
instructions for the initial inspection start date for airplanes with
modifications accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6120
that have not accomplished Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6121.
Further, UPS Airlines asserted that this request is in line with the
30-month pin replacement threshold for airplanes equipped with the
older pin. Airplanes with the newer pins installed in the past three
years without the spacer installation, UPS Airlines also asserted, are
less prone to any safety or operational concerns than those with the
older pins.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. In developing
an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered the
urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition as well as the
recommendations of the manufacturer. The compliance time for the
initial GVI for Group 2 airplanes is ``Within 30 months after pin
replacement,'' as specified in EASA AD 2020-0145. Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-32-6120, which provides instructions for pin replacement,
was issued September 24, 2019. Therefore, the earliest possible
compliance time for the inspection would be 30 months from September
24, 2019. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0145 describes procedures for repetitive detailed
visual inspections of the MLG leg components and replacement of the MLG
leg if cracked components are found. EASA AD 2020-0145 also describes
procedures, for certain airplanes, for modification of the MLG hinge
arm by installing improved pins, which would terminate the repetitive
detailed inspections required by AD 2019-03-10; an out-of-roundness
check of removed pins; repetitive inspections of affected pins and the
associated connecting rod bushes for cracking, and replacement of the
MLG leg if cracked

components are found; and installation of an improved spacer, which
would terminate the repetitive pin and rod bushes inspections. EASA AD
2020-0145 also describes procedures for reporting results of the out-
of-roundness check to Safran.
    Safran Landing Systems has issued Safran Service Bulletin 470-32-
840, dated December 3, 2019. This service information describes
procedures for inspecting the hinge arm pins of the MLG barrel to
detect local out-of-roundness.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2019-   1 work-hour x $85 per                $0  $85, per            $10,880, per
 03-10.                           hour = $85, per                          inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
New modifications..............  180 work-hours x $85             17,993  33,293............  4,261,504.
                                  per hour = $15,300.
New inspection.................  1 work-hour x $85 per                 0  85................  10,880.
                                  hour = $85.
New out-of-roundness check.....  4 work-hours x $85 per                0  340...............  43,520.
                                  hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the
cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $85,
or $85 per product.

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Labor cost                          Parts cost                       Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,700 per  $3,400,000 per MLG..........  $3,401,700 per MLG.
 MLG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-03-10, Amendment 39-19562
(84 FR 5595, February 22, 2019); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2021-11-18 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21580; Docket No. FAA-2020-1113;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00893-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 16, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2019-03-10, Amendment 39-19562 (84 FR 5595,
February 22, 2019) (AD 2019-03-10).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this AD.
    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and
B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
    (3) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (5) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in main landing gear
(MLG) leg components, and a determination that additional actions
(including inspections, modifications, and out-of-roundness checks)
are needed to address the unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address cracking of certain components in the MLG leg, which
could result in an MLG collapse, and consequent damage to the
airplane and injury to the airplane occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0145, dated July 1, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0145).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0145

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0145 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2020-0145 refers to the effective date of EASA
AD 2018-0170, this AD requires using March 29, 2019 (the effective
date of AD 2019-03-10).
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0145 does not apply
to this AD.
    (4) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0145 specifies to ``send all
removed pins for an out-of-roundness check.'' For this AD, do an
inspection of each pin for out-of-roundness, in accordance with
Safran Service Bulletin 470-32-840, dated December 3, 2019.
    (5) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0145 specifies to report
inspection results to Safran within a certain compliance time. For
this AD, report inspection results at the applicable time specified
in paragraph (h)(5)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information referenced
in EASA AD 2020-0145 that contains RC procedures or tests that are
identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply
with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC
are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified
as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with
the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
    (4) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
All responses to this collection of information are mandatory as
required by this AD. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0145,
dated July 1, 2020.
    (ii) Safran Service Bulletin 470-32-840, dated December 3, 2019.
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0145, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) For Safran service information, contact Safran Landing
Systems, One Carbon Way, Walton, KY 41094; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.safran-landing-systems.com.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1113.
    (6) You may view this material 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 May 20, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12172 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 70604]
[DOCID:fr22no05-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-163-003]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 15, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 9, 2005, Paiute Pipeline Company
(Paiute) tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas Tariff Second
Revised Volume No. 1-A Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 10 and Twelfth
Revised Sheet No. 161, to become effective December 1, 2005.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6431 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55430-55431]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 174, and 180

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0015 (HM-263)]
RIN 2137-AF21

Hazardous Materials: FAST Act Requirements for Real-Time Train
Consist Information

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On June 27, 2023, PHMSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking, titled ``Hazardous Materials: FAST Act Requirements for
Real-Time Train Consist Information (HM-263),'' proposing amendments to
the Hazardous Materials Regulations to require all railroads to
generate in electronic form, maintain, and provide to first responders,
emergency response officials, and law enforcement personnel, certain
information regarding hazardous materials in rail transportation to
enhance emergency response and investigative efforts. In response to a
request for an extension of the comment period submitted by the
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), PHMSA
is extending the comment period for the HM-263 notice by an additional
60 days. Comments to the HM-263 notice will now be due by October 27,
2023.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before October 27, 2023. To
the extent possible, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0015 (HM-
263) and may be submitted in the following ways:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Dockets Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System: Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
Docket Number for this notice (PHMSA-2016-0015) at the beginning of the
comment. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four
methods. All comments received will be posted without change to the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) and will include any personal
information you provide.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read associated documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its process. DOT posts these
comments without change, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive
to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN'' for ``proprietary information.'' Submissions
containing CBI should be sent to Dirk Der Kinderen, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Any commentary that PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dirk Der Kinderen, Standards and
Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 27, 2023, PHMSA published the HM-263 notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) \1\ in response to statutory mandates in the ``Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act'',\2\ as amended, and a National
Transportation Safety Board safety recommendation; and complements
existing regulatory requirements pertaining to the generation,
maintenance, and provision of similar information in hard copy form, as
well as other hazard communication requirements. PHMSA's proposal will
require all railroads transporting hazardous materials to generate in
electronic form train consist information, maintain that information
off-the-train, update that information in real-time, and provide that
information to authorized emergency response personnel in advance of
their arrival to an accident or incident. As such, railroads operating
a train carrying hazardous materials will be required to push that
information to state authorized local first responders promptly
following either an accident involving that train, or an incident
involving the release or suspected release of hazardous material from
that train. Railroads must also ensure that, in updating that
electronic train consist information, they also update hard (printed)
copy versions of the same information provided to train crews such that
both hard (printed) copy and electronic versions of that information

are consistent, accurate, and available when needed most.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 41541.
    \2\ Public Law 114-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Comment Period Extension

    PHMSA initially provided a 60-day comment period for the HM-263
NPRM, which closes on August 28, 2023. In response to a request to
extend the comment period from ASLRRA,\3\ PHMSA is extending the
comment period for an additional 60 days. ASLRRA requested the
extension to allow additional time to gather feedback on the economic
impacts of the rulemaking from its member railroads--the majority of
which are small businesses. The comment period will now close on
October 27, 2023. This extension provides the public with an additional
60 days and should provide adequate opportunity for the public to
submit comments; however, PHMSA may, at its discretion, extend the
comment period further if necessary. To the extent possible, PHMSA will
also consider late-filed comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ASLRRA's comment may be reviewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/PHMSA-2016-0015-0016.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2023, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-17472 Filed 8-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65875-65877]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26792]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2011-0103; [FRL-9743-7]

Adequacy of Arizona Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public hearing and continued opportunity to comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency Region IX will hold a
public hearing concerning the agency's tentative determination to
approve a modification to Arizona's municipal solid waste landfill
(MSWLF) permit program to allow the State to issue research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) permits for new and existing
MSWLF units and lateral expansions. EPA published its tentative
determination on February 22, 2011 and offered an opportunity for a
public hearing. Initially, EPA closed its comment period on April 25,
2011 and announced it would not hold a public hearing. Since that time,
in response to public interest and updates to Arizona's RD&D permit
program, EPA decided to hold a public hearing, extend the comment
period through the date of the public hearing, and make available for
public review the updated information submitted by Arizona in support
of its RD&D program.

DATES: EPA will hold a public hearing on December 18, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
in Room 145 on the first floor of the office of the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality at 1110 West Washington Street, Phoenix,
Arizona. Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2012. EPA
will accept all comments received between February 22, 2011 and
December 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
RCRA-2011-0103 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Karen Ueno (WST-7), Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
     Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-
2011-0103. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, or any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as the State's prior applications for MSWLF permit program
approval, are available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. This Docket facility is
open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. It is located in a secured building. To review docket
materials at the Docket facility, it is recommended that an appointment
be made in advance by calling the Docket facility at (415) 947- 4406
during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Ueno, Waste Management Division,
WST-7, Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Background

    On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule amending the municipal
solid waste landfill criteria at 40 CFR 258.4 to allow for Research,
Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) permits (69 FR 13242). This rule
allows for variances from specified criteria for a limited period of
time. Specifically, the rule allows the Director of an EPA-approved
State permit program to issue a time-limited RD&D permit for a new
MSWLF unit, existing MSWLF unit, or lateral expansion, for which the
owner or operator proposes to use innovative and new methods which vary
from either or both of the following: (1) The run-on control systems at
40 CFR 258.26, and/or (2) the liquids restrictions at 40 CFR 258.28(a),
provided that the MSWLF unit has a leachate collection system designed
and constructed to maintain less than a 30 cm depth of leachate on the
liner. The rule also allows the Director of an EPA-approved State
permit program to issue a time-limited RD&D permit for which the owner
or operator proposes to use innovative and new methods that vary from
the final cover criteria at 40 CFR 258.60(a) (1) and (2), and (b) (1),
provided that the owner or operator demonstrates that the alternative
cover system will not contaminate groundwater or surface water, or
cause leachate depth on the liner to exceed 30 cm. An RD&D permit
cannot exceed three years and a renewal of an RD&D permit cannot exceed
three years. Although multiple renewals of an RD&D permit can be
issued, the total term for an RD&D permit including renewals cannot
exceed twelve years.
    RD&D permits are only available in states with EPA-approved MSWLF
permit programs that have been modified to incorporate the RD&D permit
authority. Although a state is not required to seek approval for the
RD&D permit provision, a state must obtain EPA approval before it may
issue such a permit. Requirements for EPA's determination of a state
program's adequacy and the approval procedures are contained in 40 CFR
Part 239.
    In 1994, EPA Region IX approved the State of Arizona's municipal
solid waste landfill (MSWLF) permit program pursuant to Subtitle D of
the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). By
application dated June 28, 2010, updated on January 26, 2011 and
September 27, 2012, the State of Arizona is seeking EPA approval for a
modification to the State's existing MSWLF permit program to include
RD&D permits. On February 22, 2011, EPA published a tentative approval
of Arizona's RD&D permit program modification. (76 FR 9772).
    Following the close of the public hearing and the public comment
period, and after consideration of comments received, EPA will issue a
final determination. If EPA grants approval, Arizona will be able to
issue variances for run-on control systems, liquid restrictions, and
final cover criteria to allow for innovative and new methods, such as
bioreactor landfills. The approval of the program modification will
allow the Director of Arizona's program to provide a variance from
certain MSWLF criteria, provided that the MSWLF owner/operator
demonstrates that compliance with the RD&D permit will not increase
risk to human health and the environment. The Director may provide a
variance from existing requirements of MSWLF criteria for run-on
control systems, liquids restrictions, and final cover. EPA is seeking
public comment on its tentative determination of the adequacy of
Arizona's RD&D modification to its MSWLF permit program.

B. Submitting Comments on EPA's Tentative Determination

    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit
this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    Docket Copying Costs. Copying arrangements will be made through the
Docket facility and billed directly to the recipient. Copying costs may
be waived depending on the total number of pages copied.

    Authority: Sections 2002, 4005, and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945, and 6949(a).
Delegation 8-46. State/Tribal Permit Programs for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills.

    Dated: October 22, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-26792 Filed 10-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25579-25581]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11857]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0518]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Flagship Niagara's Mariners Ball; Presque Isle Bay,
Erie, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 300-foot radius of the launch site located at
Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from portions of the Presque Isle Bay during the Flagship
Niagara's Mariners Ball fireworks display. This temporary safety zone
is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational
hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on June
2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0518 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit
notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the
event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to
wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to
the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect
spectators and vessels form the hazards associated with a fireworks
display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and
vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a
fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations,
dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display
takes place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on June 2, 2018, from 9:30 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA contained within 300-foot radius of:
42[deg]08'22.5'' N, 080[deg]05'15.6'' W.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion
that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate
that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere
with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant
or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy
issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small
and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has
been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions
on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be
minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit
through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule
establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0518 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0518   Safety Zone; Flagship Niagara's Mariners Ball;
Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA contained within a 300-foot radius of:
42[deg]08'22.5'' N, 080[deg]05'15.6'' W.
    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9:30
p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on June 2, 2018.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 29, 2018.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2018-11857 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P