[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 66 (Friday, April 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17051-17053]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06909]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80362; File No. SR-ISEMercury-2017-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to ``Tick-Worse''
Functionality

April 3, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 28, 2017, ISE Mercury, LLC (``ISE Mercury'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to (i) request the decommission of ``Tick-
Worse'' functionality and (ii) amend Rule 713 (Priority of Quotes and
Orders) relating to the priority of split price transactions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to (i) decommission the
``Tick-Worse'' functionality and (ii) amend Rule 713 (Priority of
Quotes and Orders) as it relates to the priority of split price
transactions. The proposed changes are discussed below.
``Tick-Worse'' Functionality
    The Exchange currently provides market makers \3\ with Tick-Worse
functionality, which allows market makers to pre-define the prices and
sizes at which the system will automatically move their quotation
following an execution that exhausts the size of their existing
quotation.\4\ As such, when a market maker's quote is traded out, it
can be automatically reinstated into the Exchange's order book at the
next best price.\5\ This optional feature is intended to help market
makers meet their continuous quoting obligations under the Exchange's
rules \6\ when their displayed quotations are exhausted. When a market
maker's quote is traded out and automatically reinstated into the
Exchange's order book using the Tick-Worse functionality, the
reinstated quote will be given priority pursuant to the Exchange's
split price priority rule as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``market makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Rule
100(a)(25).
    \4\ Tick-Worse functionality is not currently memorialized in
the Exchange's rulebook. In addition, the Exchange will not offer
Tick-Worse on the new Nasdaq INET system going forward. On September
30, 2004, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') filed
with the Commission a proposal to codify this functionality in its
rulebook, but inadvertently deleted the rule as obsolete rule text
in a subsequent proposal filed on December 21, 2012. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 51050 (January 18, 2005), 70 FR 3758
(January 26, 2005) (SR-ISE-2004-31); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 68570 (January 3, 2013), 78 FR 1901 (January 9, 2013) (SR-ISE-
2012-82). The Exchange imported Rule 713 from ISE's rulebook when
the Commission granted the Exchange's application for registration
as a national securities exchange, which was after the Tick-Worse
functionality rule was inadvertently removed from ISE's rules. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76998 (January 29, 2016), 81 FR
6066 (February 4, 2016) (Order Granting Registration as a National
Securities Exchange).
    \5\ Market makers may choose to set Tick-Worse parameters by
specifying how many price ticks back, and for what size, the quote
is to be reinstated.
    \6\ Specifically, Primary Market Makers (``PMMs'') are required
under Rule 804(e)(1) to enter quotations in all of the series listed
on the Exchange of the options classes to which they are appointed
on a daily basis. Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 804 further
requires PMMs to quote 90% of the time their assigned options class
is open for trading on the Exchange. As provided in Rule 804(e)(2),
Competitive Market Makers (``CMMs'') are not required to enter
quotations in the options class to which they are appointed, but in
the event a CMM does initiate quoting, such CMM is generally
required to quote 60% of the time its assigned options class is open
for trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the lack of demand for the Tick-Worse feature, the Exchange
proposes to decommission the use of this functionality as it migrates
symbols to INET no later than in 2017 Q3.\7\ As discussed above, the
Exchange offers the Tick-Worse feature as a voluntary tool for market
makers to assist them in meeting their continuous quoting obligations
under the Exchange's rules. As such, market makers are not required to
use the Exchange-provided functionality and can program their own
systems to perform the same functions if they prefer. The Exchange has
found that almost all market makers use their own systems rather than
the Exchange's Tick-Worse feature to send refreshed quotations when
their displayed quotations are exhausted, and therefore members have
discontinued use of this functionality. Because the Tick-Worse
functionality is currently not memorialized in the Exchange's rules as
noted above, there is no text of the proposed rule change. The Exchange
will provide advance notice to its Members through an Options Trader
Alert of the intent to decommission the Tick-Worse functionality.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Currently, this functionality is being used by one market
maker on the Exchange.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that it similarly decommissioned Tick-
Worse on ISE Gemini, LLC on February 21, 2017. See Market
Information Circular 2017-10.

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

Split Price Priority
    The Exchange is proposing to delete Rule 713(f), which relates to
the priority of split price transactions, because this priority rule
currently only applies in the context of the Tick-Worse functionality,
as described above, which the Exchange proposes to decommission. The
Exchange proposes to delete this rule no later than 2017 Q3, along with
the decommissioning of the Tick-Worse functionality.
    Rule 713(f) provides that if a Member purchases (sells) one (1) or
more options contracts of a particular series at a particular price, it
shall at the next lower (higher) price at which there are Professional
Orders or market maker quotes, have priority over such Professional
Orders and market maker quotes in purchasing (selling) up to the
equivalent number of options contracts of the same series that it
purchased (sold) at the higher (lower) price, but only if the purchase
(sale) so effected represents the opposite side of a transaction with
the same offer (bid) as the earlier purchase (sale). Although the
language of Rule 713(f) is more general, the Exchange's intent was to
apply split price priority solely to the Tick-Worse functionality.
Example
--Primary Market Maker has opted into tick worse functionality and
selected to tick worse and post 10 contracts at a penny worse than
their original quote
--Primary Market Maker quote for 10 contracts bid at $1.00 and 10
contracts offered at $1.02
--Additionally, there is a Priority Customer order to buy 5 contracts
at $0.99, and a Competitive Market Maker quote for 10 contracts bid at
$0.99 and 10 contracts offered at $1.02
--A member enters a sell order for 20 contracts at $0.99
--This order will trade as follows:
--10 contracts trade at $1.00 with the Primary Market Maker bid quote,
and Primary Market Maker is ticked worse to 10 contracts bid at $0.99
--5 contracts trade at $0.99 with the Priority Customer order due to
customer priority
--5 contracts trade at $0.99 with the Primary Market Maker's ticked
worse quote due to the split price priority rule; 0 contracts trade
with the Competitive Market Maker bid quote

    The Exchange represents that Tick-Worse has historically only ever
applied in the context of the split price priority rule in Rule 713(f).
Furthermore, the Exchange has historically only ever awarded priority
pursuant to Rule 713(f) for split price transactions that occur in the
Tick-Worse functionality, and the existing rule should have been
clarified to more accurately reflect its current application.
Nonetheless, the Exchange is now proposing to delete the rule text in
its entirety along with decommissioning the Tick-Worse functionality,
as proposed above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Tick-Worse'' Functionality
    As noted above, the Exchange originally offered Tick-Worse as an
optional feature to help market makers meet their continuous quoting
obligations under the Exchange's rules. The Exchange believes that its
proposal is consistent with the Act because it has found that the Tick-
Worse feature is rarely used today\11\ as almost all market makers use
their own systems to send refreshed quotations when their displayed
quotations are exhausted. The Exchange therefore believes that it is
consistent with the Act to propose to discontinue use of this
functionality prior to the migration to INET. Because one member
continues to utilize the functionality, the Exchange believes that
providing advance notice of the intent to decommission this
functionality will serve to prepare Members as to the upcoming change
with INET. As such, the Exchange believes that decommissioning Tick-
Worse prior to the migration to INET and providing advance notice to
its members is consistent with the Act because it eliminates any
investor uncertainty related to the status of this functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ It is only being used by one market maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Split Price Priority
    The Exchange also believes that its proposal to delete the split
price priority rule in Rule 713(f) protects investors and the public
interest because it removes rule text that will become obsolete with
the decommission of the Tick-Worse functionality. As described above,
the split price priority rule only applies to the Tick-Worse
functionality. Because the Rule is more general than its current,
specific application, however, the Exchange believes that the continued
presence of Rule 713(f) in its rules even after retiring the Tick-Worse
functionality will be confusing to its members and investors. By
removing obsolete rule text that only applies in the context of Tick-
Worse, the Exchange is eliminating any potential for confusion about
how its systems operate.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
designed to have any competitive impact but rather request the
decommission of a rarely-used functionality on the Exchange and
relatedly, to remove the rule text that this functionality supports
from the Exchange's rulebook, thereby reducing investor confusion and
making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and navigate.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such

action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii)
for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File Number
SR-ISEMercury-2017-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEMercury-2017-06. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEMercury-2017-06 and
should be submitted on or before April 28, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06909 Filed 4-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on July 9, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-15494

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    America West Airlines, Inc.  filed  6/23/03 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Phoenix, Arizona, and Monterrey, Mexico, pursuant to a
code-share arrangement with Mesa Airlines, Inc., whereby America West
will place its code on flights operated by Mesa.

Applicant rep:   Joanne W. Young<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda
L. Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below).

The action above was effective when taken:     July 9, 2003 , through
July 9, 2005

Action taken by:     Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between
the United States and the Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

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

Special Conditions/Remarks:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted
is subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7
of Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.   Consistent with our policy, the
dormancy notice period will begin

October 20, 2003, America West’s startup date.  The exemption
authority granted is limited to service provided on a code-share basis
only.

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions:  (a) The code-sharing operations conducted
under this authority must comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment
to the Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements
that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract
between the carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon
the requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in
the name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected; and (b)	 the authority
granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither America West
nor Mesa shall give any force or effect to any contractual provisions
between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

(See Reverse Side)

2

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
 To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov/reports_aviation.asp

APPENDIX

U.S. CARRIER

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations and with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security;1 and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

													6/2003

____________________________

1 To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder should, before commencing any new
service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69734-69736]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28514]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76351; File No. SR-CHX-2015-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Business and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing Requirements for
Certain Participants in Connection With Regulation Systems Compliance
and Integrity

November 4, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on October 29, 2015, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CHX proposes to adopt business continuity and disaster recovery
plans (``BC/DR plans'') testing requirements for certain Participants
\3\ in connection with Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity
(``Regulation SCI'').\4\ CHX has designated this proposed rule change
as non-controversial pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \5\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \6\ thereunder and has provided the Commission with
the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to CHX Article 1, Rule 1(s), a Participant is
considered a ``member'' of the Exchange for the purposes of the Act.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November 19,
2014), 79 FR 72252 (December 5, 2014) (``SCI Adopting Release'').
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of this proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at (www.chx.com) and in 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    As adopted by the Commission, Regulation SCI applies to certain
self-regulatory organizations (including the Exchange), alternative
trading systems (``ATSs''), plan processors, and exempt clearing
agencies (collectively, ``SCI entities''), and will require these SCI
entities to comply with requirements with respect to the automated
systems central to the performance of their regulated activities. Among
the requirements of Regulation SCI is Rule 1001(a)(2)(v), which
requires the Exchange and other SCI entities to maintain ``[b]usiness
continuity and disaster recovery plans that include maintaining backup
and recovery capabilities sufficiently resilient and geographically
diverse and that are reasonably designed to achieve next business day
resumption of trading and two-hour resumption of critical SCI systems
following a wide-scale disruption.'' \8\ The Exchange has put extensive
time and resources toward planning for system failures and already
maintains robust BC/DR plans consistent with the Rule.\9\ As set forth
below, in connection with Regulation SCI, the Exchange is proposing to
require certain Participants to participate in testing of the operation
of the Exchange's BC/DR plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 242.1001(a)(2)(v).
    \9\ The Exchange notes that it permits the trading of securities
at two separate data centers; one in Secaucus, New Jersey (NY4) and
the other in Chicago (CH2). Each location serves as the primary
matching location for a security traded on the Exchange and no
single security is simultaneously traded at both locations, as the
Exchange maintains only one book. In the event trading cannot occur
at one location, the Exchange may move trading in affected
securities to the other location, pursuant to its BC/DR plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to an SCI entity's BC/DR plans, including its backup
systems, paragraph (a) of Rule 1004 of Regulation SCI requires each SCI
entity to: ``[e]stablish standards for the designation of those members
or participants that the SCI entity reasonably determines are, taken as
a whole, the minimum necessary for the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets in the event of the activation of such plans.'' \10\ Paragraph
(b) of Rule 1004 further requires each SCI entity to ``[d]esignate
members or participants pursuant to the standards established in
paragraph (a) of [Rule 1004] and require participation by such
designated members or participants in scheduled functional and
performance testing of the operation of such plans, in the manner and
frequency specified by the SCI entity, provided that such frequency
shall not be less than once every 12 months.'' \11\ In order to comply
with Rule 1004 of Regulation SCI, the Exchange proposes to adopt
Article 3, Rule 21 (Mandatory Participation Testing of Backup Systems)
requiring mandatory participation in testing of Exchange backup
systems, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 242.1004(a).
    \11\ 17 CFR 242.1004(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, in paragraph (a) of Rule 21, the Exchange proposes to
include language from paragraph (a) of Rule 1004 of Regulation SCI to
summarize the Exchange's obligation pursuant to such rule.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to state that ``[p]ursuant to
Regulation SCI and with respect to the Exchange's business continuity
and disaster recovery plans, including its backup systems, the Exchange
is required to establish standards for the designation of Participants
that the Exchange reasonably determines are, taken as a whole, the
minimum necessary for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets in
the event of the

activation of such plans.'' The Exchange further proposes that
paragraph (a) indicate that the ``Exchange has established standards
and will designate Participants according to those standards'' as set
forth in the proposed Rule. In addition, the Exchange proposes to make
clear that all Participants are permitted to connect to the Exchange's
backup systems as well as to participate in testing of such systems.
Proposed paragraph (a) is consistent with the Commission's adoption of
Regulation SCI, which encouraged ``SCI entities to permit non-
designated members or participants to participate in the testing of the
SCI entity's BC/DR plans if they request to do so.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See SCI Adopting Release, supra note 4 at 72350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in paragraph (b) of Rule 21, the Exchange proposes to
specify the criteria that will result in a Participant receiving a
designation requiring it to connect to the Exchange's backup systems
and to participate in functional and performance testing as announced
by the Exchange, which shall occur at least once every 12 months.
Specifically, proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require all Participants
that account for a meaningful percentage of the Exchange's overall
trades or volume to connect to the Exchange's backup systems and to
participate in functional and performance testing.
    The Exchange notes that it encourages all Participants to connect
to the Exchange's backup systems and to participate in testing of such
systems. In fact, if a Participant executes an average daily volume of
1 million or more provide shares in the Matching System during the
month, CHX will impose a cap on logical port charges equal to the
greatest number of ports attributable to that Participant in either of
CHX's data centers which helps reduce the economic burden of
maintaining connectivity to Exchange's data centers.\13\ However, in
adopting the requirements of proposed Rule 21(b), including both the
requirement to maintain connectivity to Exchange backup systems and to
participate in mandatory testing of such systems, the Exchange intends
to subject to the Rule only those Participants that the Exchange
believes are necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets at the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that designating Participants to
participate in mandatory testing because they account for a meaningful
percentage of the Exchange's overall trades or volume is a reasonable
means to ensure the maintenance of a fair and orderly market on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Section D.1 of the CHX Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to paragraphs (a) and (b) described above, the Exchange
also proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .01, which would
provide additional detail regarding the notice that will be provided to
Participants that have been designated pursuant to subparagraph (b) of
the Rule as well as the Exchange's method for measuring the trades and
volume thresholds. As proposed, Interpretation and Policy .01 would
state that for purposes of identifying Participants that account for a
meaningful percentage of the Exchange's overall trades or volume, the
Exchange will measure trades and volume executed on the Exchange on a
quarterly basis. The percentage of trades and volume that the Exchange
considers to be meaningful for purposes of this Interpretation and
Policy .01 will be determined by the Exchange and will be published in
a circular distributed to Participants. The Exchange will publish the
first circular consistent with this proposal prior to the Regulation
SCI compliance date of November 3, 2015. The proposed Interpretation
and Policy would also require the Exchange to notify individual
Participants quarterly that are subject to proposed paragraph (b) based
on the prior calendar quarter's trades and volume. Finally, as
proposed, if a Participant has not previously been subject to the
requirements of proposed paragraph (b), then such Participant would
have until the next calendar quarter before such requirements are
applicable. The Exchange believes the proposed notice requirements are
necessary to provide Participants with proper advance notice in the
event they become subject to proposed Rule 21(b). The proposed
timeframes would also provide Participants with adequate time to become
compliant with such Rule due to the necessary infrastructure changes it
may take to connect to the Exchange's backup systems for a Participant
that is not already connected.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The proposal will ensure that the Participants necessary to
ensure the maintenance of a fair an orderly market are properly
designated consistent with Rule 1004 of Regulation SCI. Specifically,
the proposal will adopt criteria with respect to the designation of
Participants that are required to participate in the testing of the
Exchange's BC/DR plans, as well as appropriate notification regarding
such designation. As set forth in the SCI Adopting Release, ``SROs have
the authority, and legal responsibility, under Section 6 of the
Exchange Act, to adopt and enforce rules (including rules to comply
with Regulation SCI's requirements relating to BC/DR testing)
applicable to their members or participants that are designed to, among
other things, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \16\ The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent
with such authority and legal responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ See SCI Adopting Release, supra note 4 at 72350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal
is not a competitive proposal but rather is necessary for the
Exchange's compliance with Regulation SCI.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \20\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
as it will allow the Exchange to incorporate changes required under
Regulation SCI, such as establishing standards for designating business
continuity and disaster recovery plan participants, prior to the
November 3, 2015 compliance date. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CHX-2015-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2015-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the CHX. 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 No. SR-CHX-2015-09 and should be
submitted on or before December 1, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28514 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65677-65680]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25859]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0023]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, MBTA Railroad Bridge Replacement Project--Annisquam
River, Gloucester, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
the navigable waters within 100 yards of the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) Railroad Bridge, at mile 0.7, across
the Annisquam River, Gloucester, Massachusetts, from December 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2023. The temporary safety zone is necessary to
protect personnel, vessels and the marine environment from potential
hazards created during the replacement project of the MBTA Railroad
Bridge. When enforced, this rule would prohibit vessels and persons
from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port (COTP) Boston or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from December 1, 2019, through June 30,
2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-2019-0023 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 about this
rulemaking, call or email Mark Cutter, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Boston, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NAD 83 North American Datum 1983
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The MBTA notified Sector Boston that there will be times in which
the narrow navigable channel underneath the MBTA Railroad Bridge,
Annisquam River, Gloucester, Massachusetts, will need to be closed for
the replacement of submarine cables, abutment construction, and span
replacement.
    In response, on August 19, 2019, the Coast Guard published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety Zone, MBTA Railroad
Bridge Replacement Project--Annisquam River, Gloucester, MA'' (84 FR
42869). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on
our proposed regulatory action related to this safety zone. During the
comment period that ended on September 18, 2019, we received zero
comments.
    The replacement project started in the fall of 2018 and is expected
to be completed in December 2022. The COTP Boston determined that the
potential hazards associated with the replacement of the submarine
cables, abutment construction, and span replacement will be a safety
concern for anyone within the work area. This temporary safety zone
would be enforced during the replacement of the submarine cables,
abutment construction, and span replacement or when other hazards to
navigation arise. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
temporary safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Boston
or a designated representative.
    The exact times of any waterways closures are unknown. However,
every effort is being made by the MBTA and contractor to schedule these
closures during the winter months when boating traffic is minimal. The
Coast Guard will notify the public of closures through the
Massachusetts Bay Harbor Safety Committee meetings, Boston's Port
Operators Group meetings, Local Notice to Mariners and through the
Gloucester Harbormaster's network. The Coast Guard will issue a Safety
Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM)
seven days in advance of the enforcement of the safety zones.
    This rulemaking is to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created during the replacement
project of the MBTA Railroad Bridge, at mile 0.7, across the Annisquam
River, Gloucester, Massachusetts. This rulemaking under authority in 46
U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The COTP Boston and has determined that potential hazards
associated with the replacement of the submarine cables, abutment
construction, and span replacement will be a safety concern for anyone
within the work area or anyone transiting within 100 yards of the MBTA
Railroad Bridge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of
vessels and personnel within 100 yards of the MBTA Railroad Bridge
before, during, and after the replacement of the submarine cables,
abutment construction, and span replacement.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received zero comments on the NPRM published
August 19, 2019. The only regulatory text change in this rule is the
start date is moved from November 1, 2019 to December 1, 2019. The
contractor has stated that they are behind schedule and would not need
the safety zone prior to December 1, 2019.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on December 1,
2019, to 11:59 on June 30, 2023. While the safety zone would be
effective throughout this period, it would only be enforced during
periods when work barges and cranes will be placed in the navigable
channel or when other hazards to navigation exist. Any closure is
expected to last less than two weeks. The safety zone would include all
navigable waters within 100 yards of the MBTA Railroad Bridge, at mile
0.7, across the Annisquam River, Gloucester, Massachusetts. During
times of enforcement, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter
the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Boston or a
designated representative. The Coast Guard will notify the public of
closures through the Massachusetts Bay Harbor Safety Committee
meetings, Boston's Port Operators Group meetings, Local Notice to
Mariners and through the Gloucester Harbormaster's network. The Coast
Guard will issue a Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) via
marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) seven days in advance of the enforcement of
the safety zones.

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, the 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 size,
location, duration, and time of year of the safety zone. There may be a
time during the boating summer season that the safety zone needs to be
enforced. However, the MBTA and contractor are making all attempts to
schedule these needed closures during the winter months. We expect the
adverse economic impact of this temporary rule to be minimal. We will
provide ample notice of the safety zone effective dates and vessels
will be able to enter the safety zone when construction equipment is
not occupying the channel. Although this regulation may have some
adverse impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimal
because the boating season for vessels on the Annisquam usually
concludes in mid-October and consequently the amount of traffic in this
waterway during the effective period for the safety zone is limited to
a few commercial lobstermen. The Gloucester Harbormaster will be
allowing the lobstermen to moor their boats at the town docks on the
harbor entrance side during periods of enforcement, which will allow
the lobstermen to transit to their lobster gear with no impact. If a
summer time closure is needed, with the exception of an emergency, we
will coordinate with the MBTA, contractor, and Harbormaster to ensure
that all alternatives are explored, the duration is of the shortest
possible timeframe, and a minimum of two weeks notification

are given to the boating public via Local Notice to Mariners, Safety
Marine Information Broadcast via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) and through
the Gloucester Harbormaster network.

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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would 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 would 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 would 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

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 would 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 involves
the establishment of a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters
within 100 yards of the MBTA Railroad Bridge, at mile 0.7, across the
Annisquam River, Gloucester, Massachusetts, from December 1, 2019
through June 30, 2023 for the replacement of the bridge. The safety
zone will only be enforced during periods when work barges and cranes
will be placed in the navigable channel or when other hazards to
navigation arise. As discussed in our pre-construction meeting, any
closure is expected to be of less than a two-week duration and all
attempts are being made by the MBTA and contractor to schedule these
closures during winter months when boating traffic is minimal. 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

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 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.T01-0023 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0023  Safety Zone; MBTA Railroad Bridge Replacement
Project--Annisquam River, Gloucester, Massachusetts.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters within 100 yards of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA) Railroad Bridge, at mile 0.7, across the Annisquam
River, Gloucester, Massachusetts.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section is enforceable from 12:01 a.m.
on December 1, 2019, to 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2023.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section:
    (1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,

warrant, petty officer, or any Federal, state, or local law enforcement
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
Boston, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may
be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate
with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of
the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of
this section.
    (2) Official patrol vessels means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved
by the COTP Boston to enforce this section.
    (d) Regulations. When this safety zone is enforced, the regulations
in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, along with those
contained in Sec.  165.23 apply:
    (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone
without the permission of the COTP Boston or the COTP's designated
representatives. However, any person or vessel permitted to enter the
safety zone must comply with the directions and orders of the COTP
Boston or the COTP's designated representatives.
    (2) To obtain permission required by this section, individuals may
reach the COTP Boston or a COTP-designated representative via Channel
16 (VHF-FM) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (Sector Boston Command Center).
    (e) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232.

    Dated: November 21, 2019.
Eric J. Doucette,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2019-25859 Filed 11-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61583-61584]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10661-051]

Indiana Michigan Power Company; Notice of Denial of Water Quality
Certification

    On September 30, 2021, Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M Power)
filed an application for a new license for the Constantine
Hydroelectric Project (project). I&M Power filed with the Michigan
Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (Michigan EGLE) a
request for water quality certification for the project under section
401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act on November 30, 2022. On June 1, 2023,
Michigan EGLE denied certification for the project. I&M Power filed a
copy of Michigan EGLE's denial of certification on August 11, 2023.
Pursuant to 40 CFR

121.8, we are providing notice that Michigan EGLE's denial satisfies
the requirements of 40 CFR 121.7(e).

    Dated: August 30, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19220 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 83)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23134-23136]
[DOCID:fr29ap08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0483; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes, and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -
145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    It has been found the occurrence of smoke in the flight deck
originated from Pitot 1/2 and TAT 1/2 current sensor relays and
[their] respective sockets, caused by poor electrical contacts
between those relays and their sockets.

The unsafe condition is that smoke in the flight deck may interfere
with the flightcrew's ability to operate the airplane. The proposed AD
would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1405; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0483;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-006-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC),
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2007-11-04R1, effective December 21, 2007
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found the occurrence of smoke in the flight deck
originated from Pitot 1/2 and TAT 1/2 current sensor relays and
[their] respective sockets, caused by poor electrical contacts
between those relays and their sockets.

The unsafe condition is that smoke in the flight deck may interfere
with the flightcrew's ability to operate the airplane. Corrective
actions include inspecting for damage of the Pitot 1 and 2 and TAT 1
and 2 current sensor relays and sockets; and, as applicable, replacing
the A1 and C1 electrical contacts of the sockets and reidentifying the
sockets, replacing the sockets, and replacing current sensor relays.
Damage may include melted points or stuck material of the silicone
gasket, incorrect shape of the current sensor relay/sockets,
discoloration of contacts, loose pin-type contacts, cracking or loose
material of the polish and sealant of the bases, contaminants of the
current sensor relays/sockets, and stuck material or roughness of the
surface of the current sensor relay/pin-type contact. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Embraer has issued Service Bulletin 145-30-0052, dated August 2,
2007; and Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0019, dated August 28, 2007. The
actions described in this service information are intended to correct
the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 704 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of

this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $450,560, or $640 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-
2008-0483; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-006-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 29, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Embraer Model EMB-135 airplanes and Model
EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP
airplanes; certificated in any category; having serial numbers
145002 through 145362, 145364 through 145590, and 145592 through
14500987.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and
Rain Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    It has been found the occurrence of smoke in the flight deck
originated from Pitot 1/2 and TAT 1/2 current sensor relays and
[their] respective sockets, caused by poor electrical contacts
between those relays and their sockets.

The unsafe condition is that smoke in the flight deck may interfere
with the flightcrew's ability to operate the airplane. Corrective
actions include inspecting for damage of the Pitot 1 and 2 and TAT 1
and 2 current sensor relays and sockets; and, as applicable,
replacing the A1 and C1 electrical contacts of the sockets and
reidentifying the sockets, replacing the sockets, and replacing
current sensor relays. Damage may include melted points or stuck
material of the silicone gasket, incorrect shape of the current
sensor relay/sockets, discoloration of contacts, loose pin-type
contacts, cracking or loose material of the polish and sealant of
the bases, contaminants of the current sensor relays/sockets, and
stuck material or roughness of the surface of the current sensor
relay/pin-type contact.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 2,500 flight hours or 24 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless already done, do the
following actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Embraer Service Bulletin 145-30-0052, dated August 2, 2007; or
Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0019, dated August 28, 2007; as
applicable. Do all applicable replacements and re-identification
before further flight.
    (1) Perform a detailed inspection of the Pitot 1 (K0053), Pitot
2 (K0054), TAT 1 (K0064), and TAT 2 (K0494) current sensor relays
for possible damage caused by overheating in their contacts,
enclosure, and finishing material.
    (i) If no damage is found on a current sensor relay, that relay
may be reinstalled.
    (ii) If any damage is found on a current sensor relay, replace
the relay with a new relay having the same part number (P/N) CS500-
060-D4A.
    (2) Perform a detailed inspection on the Pitot 1 (XK0053), Pitot
2 (XK0054), TAT 1 (XK0064), and TAT 2 (XK0494) relay sockets for
possible damage caused by overheating in their contacts, enclosure,
and finishing material.
    (i) If no damage is found on a socket, replace electrical
contacts A1 and C1 of the socket with new contacts having P/N
M39029/92-536; re-identify the socket from P/N S500-9140 to S500-
9140-A; and re-identify the socket electrical code from XK0053,
XK0054, XK0064, and XK0494, to XK1243, XK1242, XK1245, and XK1244,
respectively.
    (ii) If any damage is found on a socket, replace the socket with
a new socket having P/N S500-9140-A or S500-9216.

    Note 1: For the purpose of this AD, a detailed inspection (DET)
is: ``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation or
assembly to detect damage, failure or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate access procedures may be required.''

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-11-
04R1, effective December 21, 2007; Embraer Service Bulletin 145-30-
0052, dated August 2, 2007; and Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-
0019, dated August 28, 2007; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-9315 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5670-5671]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03057]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0069; FRL--9989-69-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards for Acetal Resin;
Acrylic and Modacrylic Fiber; Hydrogen Fluoride and Polycarbonate
Production (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Source Categories:
Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards for Acetal
Resin; Acrylic and Modacrylic Fiber; Hydrogen Fluoride and
Polycarbonate Production (EPA ICR No. 1871.10, OMB Control No. 2060-
0420), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
March 31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register, on May 30, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 25,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0069, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,

Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Generic
Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards for Acetal Resin;
Acrylic and Modacrylic Fiber; Hydrogen Fluoride and Polycarbonate
Production apply to new and existing facilities of the following four
categories: Polycarbonates (PC) Production, Acrylic and Modacrylic
Fibers (AMF) Production, Acetal Resins (AR) Production, and Hydrogen
Fluoride (HF) Production. In general, all NESHAP standards require
initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the
owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are existing facilities
and new of the following four categories: Polycarbonates (PC)
Production, Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers (AMF) Production, Acetal
Resins (AR) Production, and Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Production. The PC
industry consists of facilities that produce polycarbonates, a process
that involves a polymerization reaction using either a solution or
suspension process in either a batch or continuous mode. All production
of polycarbonates in the United States is currently based on the
polymerization reaction of bisphenols with phosgene in the presence of
catalysts, solvents (mainly methylene chloride) and other additives.
The AMF industry consists of facilities that produce acrylic and
modacrylic fibers, which are manufactured synthetic fibers in which the
fiber-forming substance is any long-chain synthetic polymer containing
acrylonitrile units. The AR industry consists of facilities that
produce homopolymers and/or copolymers of alternating oxymethylene
units. Acetal resins are also known as polyoxymethylenes, polyacetals,
and aldehyde resins. The HF industry consists of facilities that
produce and recover hydrogen fluoride by reacting calcium fluoride with
sulfuric acid. In this subpart, hydrogen fluoride production is not a
process that produces gaseous hydrogen fluoride for direct reaction
with hydrated aluminum to form aluminum fluoride (i.e., the hydrogen
fluoride is not recovered as an intermediate or final product prior to
reacting with the hydrated aluminum).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 63, Subpart
YY).
    Estimated number of respondents: 7 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 2,910 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $361,000 (per year), which includes $43,100
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The decrease in burden from the most-
recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. The change in the burden
and cost estimates occurred because the most-recent amendments to these
standards have been in effect for more than three years and the
requirements are different during initial compliance (new facilities)
as compared to on-going compliance (existing facilities). The previous
ICR reflected those burdens and costs associated with the initial
activities for subject facilities from the October 8, 2014 final rule.
This included purchasing monitoring equipment, conducting performance
tests, and establishing recordkeeping systems. This ICR, by in large,
reflects the on-going burden and costs for existing facilities.
Activities for existing sources include continuous monitoring of
pollutants and the submission of semiannual reports. There is a
decrease in capital/startup vs. operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
as calculated in section 6(b)(iii) compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB due there being no new respondents.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-03057 Filed 2-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P