[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 32660-32662]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60191; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 7.31

June 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on June 24, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. NYSE Arca filed the proposed rule change as a ``non-
controversial'' proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31. A copy
of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 purpose of this rule filing is to add Self-Trade Prevention
(``STP'') modifiers to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31. The proposed STP
modifiers are designed to prevent two orders with the same ETP ID from
executing against each other. The Exchange proposes adding four STP
modifiers that will be implemented and made available at the Equity
Trading Permit ID (``ETP ID'') level.\6\ The STP modifiers will not be
automatically implemented across all ETP ID's, but rather ETP Holders
must elect to designate each order with one of the STP modifiers. The
STP modifier on the incoming order controls the interaction between two
orders marked with STP modifiers. The four new STP modifiers are
discussed more thoroughly below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Each ETP Holder is assigned an ETP ID which is used as a
firm identifier within Exchange systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

STP Cancel Newest (``STPN'')
    An incoming order marked with the STPN modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any of the STP
modifiers from the same ETP ID. The incoming order marked with the STPN
modifier will be cancelled back to the originating ETP Holder. The
resting order marked with one of the STP modifiers, which otherwise
would have interacted with the incoming order by the same ETP Holder,
will remain on the NYSE Arca Book.

    STPN Example 1:  An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 500 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPN
modifier.
    STPN Result 1: The incoming sell order for 500 shares @ $22.00
marked with the STPN modifier is cancelled back to the originating
ETP Holder. The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00 marked
one of the four STP modifiers remains on the NYSE Arca Book.
    STPN Example 2:  An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 700 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPN
modifier.
    STPN Result 2: The incoming sell order for 700 shares @ $22.00
marked with the STPN modifier is cancelled back to the originating
ETP Holder. The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00 marked
one of the four STP modifiers remains on the NYSE Arca Book.
    STPN Example 3:  An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 400 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPN
modifier.
    STPN Result 3: The incoming sell order for 400 shares @ $22.00
marked with the STPN modifier is cancelled back to the originating
ETP Holder. The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00 marked
one of the four STP modifiers remains on the NYSE Arca Book.

STP Cancel Oldest (``STPO'')

    An incoming order marked with the STPO modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any of the STP
modifiers from the same ETP ID. The resting order marked with any of
the STP modifiers, which otherwise would have interacted with the
incoming order by the same ETP Holder, will be cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder. The incoming order marked with the STPO
modifier will remain on the NYSE Arca Book.

    STPO Example 1:  An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 500 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPO
modifier.
    STPO Result 1: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the four STP modifiers is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder. The incoming sell order for 500 shares @
$22.00 marked with the STPO modifier is entered in the NYSE Arca
Book.

    STPO Example 2: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 700 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPO
modifier.
    STPO Result 2: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the four STP modifiers is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder. The incoming sell order for 700 shares @
$22.00 marked with the STPO modifier is entered on the NYSE Arca
Book.
    STPO Example 3: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 400 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPO
modifier.
    STPO Result 3: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the four STP modifiers is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder. The incoming sell order for 400 shares @
$22.00 marked with the STPN modifier entered on the NYSE Arca Book.

STP Decrement and Cancel (``STPD'')

    An incoming order marked with the STPD modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any of the STP
modifiers from the same ETP ID. If both orders are equivalent in size,
both orders will be cancelled back to the originating ETP Holders. If
the orders are not equivalent in size, the equivalent size will be
cancelled back to the originating ETP Holders and the larger order will
be decremented by the size of the smaller order with the balance
remaining on the NYSE Arca Book.

    STPD Example 1:  An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 500 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPD
modifier.
    STPD Result 1: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the four STP modifiers is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder. The incoming sell order for 500 shares @
$22.00 marked with the STPD modifier is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder.
    STPD Example 2: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 700 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPD
modifier.
    STPD Result 2: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the four STP modifiers is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder. The equivalent portion, 500 shares, of the
incoming sell order marked with the STPD modifier is cancelled back
to the originating ETP Holder. The remaining portion, 200 shares, is
entered on the NYSE Arca Book.
    STPD Example 3: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 400 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPD
modifier.
    STPD Result 3: 400 of the 500 shares on the resting buy order at
$22.00 marked with one of the four STP modifiers is cancelled back
to the originating ETP Holder. The outstanding 100 shares remain on
the NYSE Arca Book. The incoming sell order for 400 shares @ $22.00
marked with the STPD modifier is cancelled back to the originating
ETP Holder.

STP Cancel Both (``STPC'')

    An incoming order marked with the STPC modifier will not execute
against opposite side resting interest marked with any of the STP
modifiers from the same ETP ID. The entire size of both orders will be
cancelled back to originating ETP Holder.

    STPC Example 1:  An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 500 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPC
modifier.
    STPC Result 1: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the four STP modifiers is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder. The incoming sell order for 500 shares @
$22.00 marked with the STPC modifier is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder.
    STPC Example 2: An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 700 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPC
modifier.
    STPC Result 2: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the four STP modifiers is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder. The incoming order to sell 700 shares @
$22.00 marked with the STPC modifier is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder.
    STPC Example 3:  An order to buy 500 shares @ $22.00 is marked
with any of the four STP modifiers and becomes a resting order in
the NYSE Arca Book. Subsequently, an order to sell 400 shares @
$22.00 is entered with the same ETP ID and marked with the STPC
modifier.
    STPC Result 3: The resting buy order for 500 shares at $22.00
marked with one of the four STP modifiers is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder. The incoming order to sell 400 shares @
$22.00 marked with the STPC modifier is cancelled back to the
originating ETP Holder.

    STP modifiers are intended to prevent interaction between the same
ETP ID. STP modifiers must be present on both the buy and the sell
order in order to prevent a trade from occurring and to effect a cancel
instruction. STP modifiers are available for orders entered in either
an agency or principal capacity. An incoming STP order cannot cancel
through resting orders that have price and/or time priority. When an
order with an STP modifier is entered it will first interact will all
available interest in accordance with the Order Ranking and Display
process pursuant to Exchange Rule 7.36. If there is a remaining balance
on the order after trading with all orders with higher priority, it may
then interact with an opposite side STP order in accordance with the
rules established above. In situations where there are multiple STP
orders resting in the NYSE Arca Book, an incoming STP order interacts
only with the first resting STP order that it encounters. Incoming STP
orders that are priced through the price of a resting STP order may
cancel the resting order as long as no other non-STP orders have
priority. Additionally, orders marked with one of the STP modifiers
will not be prevented from interacting during any Auction process as
defined by Rule 7.35.
    The Exchange believes that adding this functionality will allow
firms to better manage order flow and prevent undesirable executions
with themselves or the potential for (or the appearance of) ``wash
sales'' that may occur as a result of the velocity of trading in
today's high speed marketplace. Commonly ETP Holders have multiple
connections into the Exchange due to capacity and speed related
demands. Orders routed by the same ETP Holder via different connections
may, in certain circumstances, trade against each other. The new STP
modifiers provide ETP Holders the opportunity to prevent these
potentially undesirable trades occurring under the same ETP ID on both
the buy and sell side of the execution. The Exchange also believes that
this functionality will allow firms to better internalize agency order
flow which in turn may decrease the costs to its customers. The
Exchange notes that the STP modifiers do not alleviate, or otherwise
exempt, broker-dealers from their best execution obligations. As such,
broker-dealers using the STP modifiers will be obligated to internally
cross agency orders at the same price, or a better price than they
would have received had the orders been executed on the Exchange.
Additionally, the STP modifiers will assist market participants in
complying with certain rules and regulations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (``ERISA'') that preclude and/or limit managing
broker-dealers of such accounts from trading as principal with orders
generated for those accounts. Finally, the Exchange

notes that offering the STP modifiers will streamline certain
regulatory functions by reducing false positive results that may occur
on Exchange generated wash trading surveillance reports when orders are
executed under the same ETP ID. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes the STP modifiers offer users enhanced order processing
functionality that may prevent potentially undesirable executions
without negatively impacting broker dealer best execution obligations.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \7\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \8\ in particular in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
This functionality will allow firms to better manage order flow and
prevent undesirable executions against themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The 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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive
the 30-day operative delay so that the benefits of this functionality
to NYSE Arca market participants expected from the rule change will not
be delayed. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay to make this functionality available without delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore,
the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-58 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-NYSEArca-2009-58. 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 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-NYSEArca-2009-58 and should
be submitted on or before July 29, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15993 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13360-13361]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05655]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications

Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e) (1) (v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently

received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Docket No.               File date     Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP15-500-000............       2-22-2016  Grouped Letters.\1\
    2. CP16-21-000.............       2-29-2016  Skye Stephenson, Ph.D.
    3. CP16-21-000.............        3-1-2016  Friendly's Ice Cream,
                                                  LLC.
    4. CP14-529-000............        3-2-2016  FERC Staff.\2\
    5. CP15-115-000............        3-2-2016  Idolly Dawson.
    6. CP16-21-000.............        3-3-2016  Grouped Letters.\3\
    7. CP15-500-000............        3-3-2016  Patrick Gillespie.
    8. CP13-193-000............        3-3-2016  Davis & Whitlock, P.C.
    9. CP16-38-000.............        3-3-2016  Virginia Run Community
                                                  Association.
Exempt:
    1. CP15-77-000.............       2-22-2016  Metropolitan Government
                                                  of Nashville and
                                                  Davidson County.
    2. CP13-492-000............       2-22-2016  Confederated Tribes of
                                                  Coos Lower Umpua and
                                                  Siuslaw Indians
                                                  Chairman Mark
                                                  Ingersoll.
    3. CP16-33-000.............       2-23-2016  U.S. House
                                                  Representative Marsha
                                                  Blackburn.
    4. CP16-21-000.............       2-24-2016  State of Maine Governor
                                                  Paul R. LePage.
    5. P-14677-001.............       2-24-2016  FERC Staff.\4\
    6. CP16-21-000.............       2-25-2016  U.S. House
                                                  Representative James
                                                  P. McGovern.
    7. CP15-554-000............       2-26-2016  FERC Staff.\5\
    8. CP15-554-000, CP15-555-        2-26-2016  FERC Staff.\6\
     000.
    9. EL16-33-000, EL16-34-000       2-29-2016  FERC Staff.\7\
    10. CP15-89-000............       2-29-2016  U.S. House
                                                  Representative Thomas
                                                  MacArthur.
    11. CP13-499-000...........        3-1-2016  U.S. House
                                                  Representative Tom
                                                  Reed.
    12. CP15-138-000...........        3-1-2016  U.S. House
                                                  Representative Lou
                                                  Barletta.
    13. CP15-148-000...........        3-2-2016  FERC Staff.\8\
    14. CP16-21-000............        3-2-2016  State of West Virginia
                                                  Senator Gregory L.
                                                  Boso, P.E.
    15. P-10482-000............        3-2-2016  U.S. House
                                                  Representative John
                                                  Katko.
    16. P-9842-006.............        3-3-2016  FERC Staff.\9\
    17. RP16-137-000...........        3-4-2016  State of Kansas Senator
                                                  Ralph Ostmeyer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Batched Mailing: 2 letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and
  staff under this docket number.
\2\ Telephone Communication Record from March 2, 2016 call with Bob
  Allesio of Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation and Southern
  Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation.
\3\ Batched Mailing: 3 letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and
  staff under this docket number.
\4\ Telephone Record from February 24, 2016 call with John Gangemi of
  ERM.
\5\ Record of Project Meeting from February 4, 2016 teleconference
  meeting with participants from FERC, U.S. Forest Service, and Atlantic
  Coast Pipeline, LLC.
\6\ Record of Project Teleconference from February 9, 2016
  teleconference meeting with participants from FERC and Atlantic Coast
  Pipeline, LLC.
\7\ Email dated February 29, 2016 to Barbara Titus.
\8\ Conference Call Notes from February 25, 2016 call with participants
  from FERC, Environment Resources Management, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
  Company, LLC, and Tetra Tech.
\9\ Telephone Record from calls on February 29, 2016 and March 1, 2016
  with Andy Givens of Cardinal Energy Service, Inc.

    Dated: March 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05655 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 38460-38461]
[DOCID:fr07jy08-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0233]

Draft Guidance for Industry: Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce
the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus From Donors of Whole Blood
and Blood Components Intended for Transfusion and Donors of Cells,
Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Request for Data

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for data.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting
submission of data related to certain recommendations in the draft
guidance

entitled, ``Draft Guidance for Industry: Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to
Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus From Donors of Whole
Blood and Blood Components Intended for Transfusion and Donors of
Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps),'' that
published April 28, 2008. The agency is taking this action to allow
interested persons to submit complete data from the 2008 West Nile
Virus season concerning the criteria for converting from minipool
nucleic acid tests (NAT) to individual donation NAT for donations of
Whole Blood and blood components for transfusion.

DATES: Submit requested data by January 31, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit written data, identified by Docket No. FDA-2008-D-
0233, to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit data in electronic format to http://www.regulations.gov. For
additional information on submitting data, see the ``Request for Data''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Under 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5), comments on guidance documents can be
submitted at any time; comments may be submitted to the addresses
specified previously.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401
Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of April 28, 2008 (73 FR 22958), FDA
published a notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance
entitled, ``Draft Guidance for Industry: Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to
Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus From Donors of Whole
Blood and Blood Components Intended for Transfusion and Donors of Human
Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps).'' The
draft guidance provides recommendations for testing of donations of
Whole Blood and blood components and HCT/P donor specimens for West
Nile Virus (WNV) using an FDA-licensed donor screening assay. FDA
requested that comments on this draft guidance be submitted within 90
days of publication. The 90-day comment period ends on July 28, 2008.
    Based on FDA's consideration of input received to date, we believe
that data collected during the 2008 WNV season will be important
information that we should obtain prior to finalizing recommendations
on criteria for converting from minipool NAT to individual donation NAT
for donations of Whole Blood and blood components for transfusion.
However, the 2008 WNV season will extend beyond the 90-day comment
period for this draft guidance. We are concerned that extending the
comment period until the end of the WNV season would significantly
delay finalization of the draft guidance, which contains additional
recommendations regarding testing of donations of Whole Blood and blood
components for transfusion and HCT/P donor specimens. Based on these
considerations, FDA is retaining the 90-day comment period for the
draft guidance (ending July 28, 2008). However, we do not intend to
finalize the proposed recommendations on conversion from minipool NAT
to individual donation NAT until obtaining additional data from the
2008 WNV season. We are requesting the submission, on or before January
31, 2009, of complete data collected during the 2008 WNV season
relating to the criteria for converting from minipool NAT to individual
NAT. FDA intends to finalize the draft guidance as soon as it is
practicable, but may finalize the criteria for conversion to individual
donation NAT in a subsequent guidance document after reviewing the
additional 2008 data.

II. Request for Data

    FDA requests the submission, on or before January 31, 2009, of
complete data collected during the 2008 WNV season relating to the
criteria for converting from minipool NAT to individual donation NAT.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic data. Submit a single copy of
electronic data or two paper copies of any mailed data, except that
individuals may submit one paper copy. Data are to be identified with
the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments are available for public examination in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic data or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm or http://
www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 30, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-15368 Filed 7-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55793-55796]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17608]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98110; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2023-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend the NYSE
American Equities Price List To Adopt a Fee for Directed Orders Routed
Directly by the Exchange to an Alternative Trading System

August 11, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on July 31, 2023, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Equities Price
List (``Price List'') to adopt a fee for Directed Orders routed
directly by the Exchange to an alternative trading system (``ATS'').
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List to adopt a fee for
Directed Orders routed directly by the Exchange to an ATS. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee change effective August 1, 2023.
Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance
of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also,
recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has been
remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader
forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').

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

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\6\ numerous alternative trading systems,\7\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 17% market share.\8\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of cash equity order flow.
More specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 1% market share
of executed volume of cash equities trading.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \6\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain exchange transaction fees because market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
Proposed Rule Change
    Pursuant to Commission approval, the Exchange has adopted an order
type known as Directed Orders.\10\ Under Exchange rules, the ATS to
which a Directed Order is routed is responsible for validating whether
the order is eligible to be accepted, and if such ATS determines to
reject the order, the order would be cancelled. Directed Orders that
are the subject of this proposed rule change are those that are routed
to OneChronos LLC (``OneChronos'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A Directed Order is a Limit Order with instructions to
route on arrival at its limit price to a specified ATS with which
the Exchange maintains an electronic linkage. See Rule 7.31E(f)(4).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95424 (August 4, 2022),
87 FR 48716 (August 10, 2022) (SR-NYSEAMER-2022-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange implemented the routing functionality to OneChronos on
September 2, 2022,\11\ and introduced the functionality at that time
without charging a fee.\12\ The Exchange now proposes to adopt a fee of
$0.0015 per share for Directed Orders routed to OneChronos. To reflect
the proposed fee, the Exchange proposes to amend current Section III.
Fees for Routing for all ETP Holders, to state ``$0.0015 per share for
Directed Orders routed to OneChronos LLC'' for securities priced at or
above $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/110000456275/OneChronos_August_2022_Trader_Update_Final.pdf.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95813 (September
16, 2022), 87 FR 57948 (September 22, 2022) (SR-NYSEAMER-2022-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since its implementation, the Directed Order functionality has
facilitated additional trading opportunities by offering ETP Holders
the ability to designate orders submitted to the Exchange to be routed
to OneChronos for execution. The functionality has also created
efficiencies for ETP Holders that choose to use the functionality by
enabling them to send orders that they wish to route to OneChronos
through the Exchange by leveraging order entry protocols already
configured for their interaction with the Exchange. Routing
functionality offered by the Exchange is completely optional and ETP
Holders can readily select between various providers of routing
services, including other exchanges and non-exchange venues. ETP
Holders that choose not to utilize Directed Orders would continue to be
able to trade on the Exchange as they currently do.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\14\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, changes to exchange
transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange
to compete for order flow.
    The routing of orders to OneChronos is provided by the Exchange on
a voluntary basis and no rule or regulation requires that the Exchange
offer it. Nor does any rule or regulation require market participants
to send orders to an ATS generally, let alone to OneChronos. The
routing of orders to OneChronos operates similarly to the Primary Only
Order already offered by the Exchange, which is an order that is routed
directly to the primary listing market on arrival, without interacting
with the interest on the Exchange Book.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 7.31E(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees
among market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposal
represents an equitable allocation of fees because it would apply
uniformly to all ETP Holders, in that all ETP Holders will have the
ability to designate orders submitted to the Exchange to be routed to
OneChronos, and each such ETP Holder would be charged the proposed fee
when utilizing the functionality. Without having a view of ETP Holders'
activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has
no way of knowing whether the proposed fee would result in any ETP
Holder from reducing or discontinuing its use of the routing
functionality. While the Exchange has no way of knowing

whether this proposed rule change would serve as a disincentive to
utilize the order type, the Exchange believes that a number of ETP
Holders will continue to utilize the functionality because of the
efficiencies created for ETP Holders that enables them to send orders
that they wish to route to OneChronos through the Exchange by
leveraging order entry protocols already configured for their
interactions with the Exchange.
    The Exchange reiterates that the routing functionality offered by
the Exchange is completely optional and that the Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
select between various providers of routing services with different
product offerings and different pricing. The Exchange believes that the
proposed flat fee structure for orders routed to away venues is a fair
and equitable approach to pricing, as it will provide certainty with
respect to execution fees.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory
as the proposal to charge a fee would be assessed on an equal basis to
all ETP Holders that use the Directed Order functionality. Moreover,
this proposed rule change neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange
believes that this proposal does not permit unfair discrimination
because the changes described in this proposal would be applied to all
similarly situated ETP Holders. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already
operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed
allocation of fees. The Exchange further believes that the proposed
rule change would not permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders
because the Directed Order functionality would remain available to all
ETP Holders on an equal basis and each such participant would be
charged the same fee for using the functionality.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the
Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed change
furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering
integrated competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient
pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and
small.'' \18\ The Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee
change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered
by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. ETP
Holders may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of ETP
Holders or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in
the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \18\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed
amendment to its Price List would not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Directed Order functionality is available to all ETP
Holders and all ETP Holders that use the functionality to route their
orders to OneChronos would be charged the proposed fee. The routing of
orders to OneChronos is provided by the Exchange on a voluntary basis
and no rule or regulation requires that the Exchange offer it. ETP
Holders have the choice whether or not to use the Directed Order
functionality and those that choose not to utilize it will not be
impacted by the proposed rule change. The Exchange also does not
believe the proposed rule change would impact intramarket competition
as the proposed fee would apply to all ETP Holders equally that choose
to utilize the Directed Order functionality, and therefore the proposed
change would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market
participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading is currently
less than 1%. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges
and with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify
their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants
may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange does not
believe its proposed fee change can impose any burden on intermarket
competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to section 19(b)(3)(A) \19\ of the Act and paragraph (f) thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-37 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-NYSEAMER-2023-37. 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 website (https://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 website 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-37 and should be submitted
on or before September 6, 2023.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17608 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38000-38004]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15683]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0102; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-004-AD;
Amendment 39-17072; AD 2012-11-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain transport category airplanes. That AD currently requires
either activating all chemical oxygen generators in the lavatories
until the generator oxygen supply is expended, or removing the oxygen
generator(s); and, for each chemical oxygen generator, after the
generator is expended (or removed), removing or restowing the oxygen
masks and closing the mask dispenser door. This new AD requires
installing a supplemental oxygen system in affected lavatories, which
terminates the requirements of the existing AD. This AD was prompted by
reports that the current design of the oxygen generators presents a
hazard that could jeopardize flight safety. We are issuing this AD to
eliminate a hazard that could jeopardize flight safety, and to ensure
that all lavatories have a supplemental oxygen supply.

DATES: This AD is effective August 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gardlin, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556,
March 8, 2011). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11418).
That NPRM proposed to continue to require either activating all
chemical oxygen generators in the lavatories until the generator oxygen
supply is expended, or removing the oxygen generator(s); and, for each
chemical oxygen generator, after the generator is expended (or
removed), removing or restowing the oxygen masks and closing the mask
dispenser door. That NPRM also proposed to require installing a
supplemental oxygen system in affected lavatories, which would
terminate the requirements of the existing AD.

Change to NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012)

    We have redesignated Note 1 of the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27,
2012) as new paragraph (h) of this AD, reidentified Note 2 as Note 1,
and reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Embraer, American Airlines (AA), Delta
Air Lines, Southwest Airlines (SWA), United Airlines (UA), and All
Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 11418,
February 27, 2012) to extend the 24-month compliance time. Airbus,
Embraer, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) International, AA, and
Boeing noted that the Lavatory Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) chartered on this subject established some notional life-cycle
times from the initiation of a design through a fleet retrofit. The
requested compliance time ranged from 36 to 60 months. The ARC
considered even a 4-year compliance time aggressive. Commenters also
noted that there are no actual designs at present; any schedule is at
risk until the design is proven and validated.
    We partially agree with the request. Because of the lack of a
retrofit design and the magnitude of the retrofit, and new
configuration(s), on such a large number of affected airplanes, we
agree that the proposed compliance time of 24 months is insufficient.
We also agree that the ARC's detailed assessment would not have
supported a 24-month compliance time. We disagree, however, to extend
the compliance time to 48 months, or longer. Some of the commenters'
concerns, as identified by the ARC, have been alleviated in the AD (for
example, streamlining the compliance process), and it is clear there
are workable design approaches that can be implemented without taking
airplanes out of service. Nonetheless, since no actual designs are yet
approved, the retrofit process cannot begin until a design is approved.
We have extended the compliance time in paragraph (l) of this final
rule to 37 months after the effective date of the AD.

Request To Retain Proposed Compliance Times

    The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) and ALPA encouraged the
issuance of the final rule with the compliance times as proposed. AFA
requested that we also incorporate interim measures. The commenters
noted that the total time that lavatories will have been without oxygen
would be about 3.5 years, even with a 24-month compliance time. AFA
pointed out that the FAA's assessment of the safety risk was based on a
finite time, and that we originally estimated a two- to four-year
period to restore oxygen. Thus, retaining the proposed 24-month
compliance time is appropriate.
    With respect to the compliance time, we disagree with the request.
Based on the number of affected airplanes and the lack of a design
solution yet approved for any of them, a 24-month compliance time is
not feasible. On the other hand, we acknowledge that compliance will be
due later than the original estimate

of a maximum of 4 years. But the adjusted compliance time is still
within the confidence level of the risk assessment--which was
conservative--conducted in support of AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). As explained previously, we have extended
the compliance time to 37 months. With respect to interim measures, we
understand the rationale for the request, and operators may, in fact,
elect to employ some interim measures. However, any interim measures
that would be required would take resources away from implementing the
terminating action, and we believe available resources should be
directed at restoring oxygen to the lavatories. We have therefore
determined that interim measures should not be mandated, and that a 37-
month compliance time will provide an adequate level of safety.

Request To Delay AD Issuance Pending Service Information Issuance

    ANA and AA requested that we delay issuing the AD until service
information is available. ANA stated that, considering lead time for
parts and preparation for the modification, the compliance time should
be determined after the service information is released. ANA suggested
it would need at least 36 months for appropriate maintenance planning
after the service information is released.
    We disagree with the request. Although there are no specific
designs available for the affected airplanes, there are system types in
service that will satisfy the requirements of the AD. Airframe
manufacturers and aftermarket modifiers are working on acceptable
designs, and we expect that there will be more than one solution
available. The FAA's goal is to retrofit supplemental oxygen systems as
quickly as practical. Waiting for service information would
unnecessarily delay that retrofit. We therefore find it necessary to
proceed with issuing this final rule.

Request To Mandate Development of Service Information and Parts

    Delta Air Lines requested that we require design approval holders
to develop and make available the necessary modification instructions
and hardware. Delta noted that other large-scale retrofit projects have
been complicated by a lack of readily available modification hardware
and service instructions.
    We disagree with the request. At this point, the FAA is confident
that there will be several modification options available to operators.
All affected airframe manufacturers, as well as oxygen system suppliers
and airplane modifiers, have discussed their intended approaches with
the FAA and appear to have viable solutions. In addition, Section 21.99
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.99) already requires
design approval holders to make design information available to correct
an unsafe condition. Thus, the additional regulatory burden of tracking
and enforcing a design approval holder requirement is not justified in
this case. But if this situation changes, we may consider additional
rulemaking to extend the time to comply with the requirements of the
AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Applicability

    Boeing requested that we revise the applicability of the NPRM (77
FR 11418, February 27, 2012). Specifically, Boeing requested removing
airplanes that have systems without chemical oxygen generators (COGs)
installed in the lavatory, and by limiting the applicability to
airplanes modified in accordance with AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), those with COGs not installed per Special
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 111, Amendment Nos. 21-94, 25-133,
121-354, and 129-50 (76 FR 12550, March 8, 2011), and those with COGs
installed in the lavatory. Since AD 2011-04-09 already proposed to
permit installation of non-COG systems using normally available
approval means, Boeing considered the continued tracking of AD
compliance for that type of system unwarranted. Further, Boeing stated
there might be confusion as to whether AD 2011-04-09 would apply to any
airplane with such a system installed.
    We partially agree with the request. We agree that continued
tracking of the non-COG installation as an AD-related action is overly
burdensome. Such systems were not the subject of AD 2011-04-09,
Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011) (which required removal
of the supplemental oxygen). We disagree, however, to change the
applicability of this AD, because the AD already captures the intent of
the request in terms of identifying affected airplanes based on whether
they are in compliance with AD 2011-04-09 or have a chemical oxygen
generator installed in any lavatory. An operator wishing to install a
COG system at a later date will need to use the alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) process. But we agree that, with appropriate
limitations, subsequent modifications to a non-COG system can be
handled under part 43 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
43). We have added a provision in paragraph (l)(2) in this final rule
that permits alterations and repairs to an approved non-COG system in
accordance with 14 CFR part 43, provided the operator's maintenance
program contains an airworthiness limitation that prohibits the
installation of COGs in lavatories.

Request To Utilize Alternative Oxygen Dosage Measurement

    AVOX Systems (AVOX) requested that we build in a streamlined
process for oxygen systems using the blood oxygen saturation level
(SaO2) as the means of determining adequate oxygen dosage.
This method will likely result in somewhat smaller oxygen supplies,
which will in turn allow the systems to more easily fit into the
existing spaces, with little or no modification.
    The regulations characterize oxygen dosage in terms of tracheal
partial pressure, an indirect method of determining adequate oxygen
supply. We infer that AVOX requested this because the FAA has approved
SaO2 via equivalent level of safety findings in accordance
with Section 21.21(b)(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.21(b)(1)), but this has required extensive testing on the part of
the applicants to show that the approach meets the intent of the
requirements. It appears that AVOX would like the FAA to use the
knowledge gained from those actions to allow approval of future
projects in an expedited manner, without the same level of testing. We
agree that, in this case, use of the SaO2 method can be
useful; this method is specifically discussed in FAA Policy Statement
PS ANM-25-04--which was mentioned in the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February
27, 2012) as a possible method of compliance with the requirements of
this AD. FAA Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-04, issued December 21, 2011
(http://rgl.faa.gov/RegulatoryandGuidanceLibrary/rgPolicy.nsf/0/06EE1CEFE9804A2F8625796E005C017F?OpenDocument&Highlight=ps-anm-25-04),
is based on the recommendations of an Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) and provides guidance to applicants that want to begin restoring
oxygen to lavatories in advance of rulemaking. This policy will be used
in making approvals of COG installations that will be used to comply
with this AD. The FAA may also propose new airworthiness standards for
the safe installations of COGs using the ARC recommendations. It is not
necessary to change the AD because the information that we can provide
is already available

in the policy statement. We have not changed the final rule regarding
this issue.

Request To Clarify Certain References

    Boeing noted that not all regulations affecting a supplemental
oxygen system are identified in paragraph (k) of the NPRM (77 FR 11418,
February 27, 2012), and could lead operators to conclude that only the
identified paragraphs need to be complied with. Boeing requested that
we revise paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM to refer to all of part 25 and
part 121 (14 CFR part 25 and 14 CFR part 121), rather than specific
sections.
    We partially agree with the request. We agree that the current
listing of rules could be misinterpreted, because there is already
regulatory relief provided, and the listing is not complete. The
listing matches the regulations for which relief was granted, both in
AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), and
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 111, Amendment Nos. 21-94, 25-
133, 121-354, and 129-50 (76 FR 12550, March 8, 2011), and so in that
sense this list is consistent. But to avoid any confusion, we have
revised paragraph (l) in this final rule (which was paragraph (k) in
the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012)) to refer to ``all
applicable'' regulations. In actual practice, this will not change the
compliance requirements, so there is no additional burden on any
operator to comply with the requirements of this AD.

Request To Include Training Requirements

    AFA requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27,
2012) to include additional requirements that mandate communication and
training for crewmembers on the proper procedures to follow in the
event of a rapid decompression before the AD-mandated actions have been
accomplished on the airplane. AFA also recommended that crew members be
notified of the progress of operators toward showing compliance; many
operators have already done something similar, but a number have not.
    We disagree with the request. As previously determined, the risks
are very low for the time periods involved. The resources needed to
implement AFA's recommended interim steps could be better used in
rapidly incorporating a final design solution. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

    Delta Air Lines requested that we revise the cost analysis to be
more specific to different airplane types and system options, and to
characterize the costs per lavatory. The current cost estimate is an
average over the entire fleet, and so by definition is not accurate for
each affected airplane.
    We disagree with the request. The variation in cost per airplane
over the fleet is typical of any cost assessment. While the costs could
be presented on a per-lavatory basis, this would also be an average,
and not necessarily correct for any given lavatory. In addition, the
cost estimates are based on the forecasted most cost-effective
approach. An operator can use a more expensive approach, but the cost
estimate would not account for that increased cost. We have not changed
the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Configuration

    ANA noted that paragraph (k) of the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27,
2012) would allow operators to choose between two methods of
compliance: with or without chemical oxygen generators. ANA requested
that we clarify what configuration will be selected on production
airplanes.
    We disagree with the request. The decision on which configuration
to use is up to the operators and their suppliers. The FAA has criteria
for either approach, and either is acceptable. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Certain AMOC Provisions

    AA requested that paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the NPRM (77 FR 11418,
February 27, 2012) be revised to include a provision relieving the need
for AMOC approval for non-COG installations. AA interprets the existing
provisions as meaning that an AMOC is not required and wants this
stated explicitly.
    We disagree with the request. Information regarding AMOCs related
to non-COG installations was provided in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the
NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) and is retained in this final
rule (in redesignated paragraph (l)(2)(ii)). There is therefore no need
to change the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Standardize Application of Certain Provision

    AA supports the provision specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the
NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) (redesignated as paragraph
(l)(2)(ii) in this final rule), but is concerned that, because the
provision is unusual, it may not be uniformly applied in the field.
    We agree that this is an unusual provision. To that end, we have
prepared an Information for Operators (InFO) bulletin 12LAV to help
explain this provision, as well as other outreach measures to help
ensure standardization. We find it is not necessary to change the final
rule to provide further explanation.

Approval Process for Compliance With AD, Using Chemical Oxygen
Generators

    Because of the issues addressed by AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-
16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), COG installations will require new
considerations in order to be found acceptable as methods of compliance
with this AD. The approval for COG installations will therefore be in a
manner approved by the FAA as discussed below.

Approval Process for Compliance With AD, Using Other Systems

    Chemical oxygen generators are one type of system used to provide
supplemental oxygen. While the majority of transport category airplanes
use this system in lavatories, there are other systems as well. If
another system type is used to meet this AD, the original unsafe
condition is not a concern. In that case, the means of compliance is
straightforward, and we have determined that the approval method could
be more flexible than is usually the case for an AD. For example,
delegated organizations cannot normally make compliance findings for
ADs; service information associated with ADs must be adhered to
exactly, or else an AMOC must be approved. For this AD, if the type of
system is other than a COG, then we have determined that these
restrictions could be relaxed. Therefore, paragraph (l)(2) of this AD
contains provisions to permit existing approval processes to be used,
as long as the means of compliance is other than a COG. This provision
takes precedence over current limitations in operators' authority to
use their organizational delegations when showing compliance with an
AD. In addition, if an operator uses service information that is
approved for such installations, deviations from the service
information can be addressed using the operator's normal procedures
without requiring an AMOC.

Oversight Office

    Paragraph (l) of this AD refers to the FAA oversight office
responsible for approval of modifications used to show compliance. This
will typically be the

aircraft certification office having geographic oversight of the
applicant. In the case of service instructions from design approval
holders of other countries, this would be the Transport Standards
Staff. We anticipate that modifications to meet this AD will require
either supplemental type certificate or amended type certificate
approval.

Minimum Equipment List (MEL)

    Although there were no comments on this issue, the FAA has
identified a potential conflict with the minimum equipment list
provisions of Sections 121.628 and 129.14 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 121.628 and 14 CFR 129.14). Since any equipment
mandated to be operative by airworthiness directive is excluded from
the MEL unless the airworthiness directive specifically provides such
allowance, we have revised this final rule to add a new paragraph (m)
to allow the use of the MEL, as applicable. We have re-identified
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously--and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 11418, February 27, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 5,500 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with the actions specified in
this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost         Parts cost   Cost per product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activate COG/expend oxygen       Up to 2 work-hours x              $0  Up to $170.......  Up to $935,000.
 supply [actions retained from    $85 per hour = up to
 AD 2011[dash]04[dash]09,         $170.
 Amendment 39[dash]16630 (76 FR
 12556, March 8, 2011)].
Oxygen system installation (new  24 work-hours x $85 per        6,000  $8,040...........  $44,220,000.
 action).                         hour = $2,040.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011, and adding
the following new AD:

2012-11-09 Transport category airplanes: Amendment 39-17072; Docket
No. FAA-2012-0102; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-004-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 10, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR
12556, March 8, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to transport category airplanes, in passenger-
carrying operations, as specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of
this AD.
    (1) Airplanes that are in compliance with the requirements of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011).
    (2) Airplanes equipped with any chemical oxygen generator
installed in any lavatory and are:
    (i) Operating under 14 CFR part 121; or
    (ii) U.S.-registered and operating under 14 CFR part 129, with a
maximum passenger capacity of 20 or greater.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the determination that the current
design of chemical oxygen generators presents a hazard that could
jeopardize flight safety. We are issuing this AD to eliminate this
hazard and ensure that all lavatories have a supplemental oxygen
supply.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Oxygen Generator

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). Within
21 days after March 14, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-04-09,
Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011)), do the actions
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Activate all chemical oxygen generators in the lavatories
until the generator oxygen supply is expended. An operator may also
remove the oxygen generator(s), in accordance with existing
maintenance practice, in lieu of activating it.
    (2) For each chemical oxygen generator, after the generator is
expended (or removed), remove or re-stow the oxygen masks and close
the mask dispenser door.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Design approval holders are
not expected to release service instructions for the action
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

(h) Retained Information About Hazardous Material

    This paragraph restates the information in Note 1 of AD 2011-04-
09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). Chemical oxygen
generators are considered a hazardous material and subject to
specific requirements under Title 49 CFR for shipping. Oxygen
generators must be expended prior to disposal but are considered a
hazardous waste; therefore, disposal must be in accordance with all
Federal, State, and local regulations. Expended oxygen generators
are forbidden in air transportation as cargo. For more information,
contact 1-800-HMR-4922.

(i) Retained Compliance With Federal Aviation Regulations of AD 2011-
04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011)

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011).
Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 25.1447, 121.329,
121.333, and 129.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
25.1447, 121.329, 121.333, and 129.13), operators complying with
this AD are authorized to operate affected airplanes until
accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

(j) Retained Parts Installation of AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011)

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). After
March 14, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-04-09), and until
accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (l) of this AD,
no person may install a chemical oxygen generator in any lavatory on
any affected airplane.

(k) Retained Special Flight Permit of AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011)

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011). Special
flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not
allowed for the accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph
(g) of this AD.

(l) New Requirements of This AD: Oxygen System Restoration

    Within 37 months after the effective date of this AD, install a
supplemental oxygen system that meets all applicable sections of
parts 25 and 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 25
and 14 CFR part 121) in each lavatory, as specified in paragraph
(l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) If compliance with paragraph (l) of this AD is achieved
using a chemical oxygen generator, the actions specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD must be done in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager of the responsible FAA oversight office
having responsibility over the modification. For a method to be
approved, it must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and
the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (2) If compliance with paragraph (l) of this AD is achieved
without a chemical oxygen generator, the specifications of
paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and (l)(2)(ii) of this AD apply. Any repairs or
alterations to a system installed and approved in accordance with
this paragraph may be accomplished in accordance with 14 CFR part
43, provided the operator's maintenance program contains an
airworthiness limitation that prohibits the installation of chemical
oxygen generators in lavatories.
    (i) The modification must receive FAA approval in accordance
with 14 CFR part 21 as a major design change. Notwithstanding
operations specification restrictions to the contrary,
organizational approval holders may exercise their full authority in
approving installations that meet the installation requirements of
this AD.
    (ii) Deviation from approved service instructions and subsequent
modifications may be handled by normal operator procedures without
requiring approval of an alternative method of compliance.

(m) Minimum Equipment List (MEL)

    Notwithstanding the requirements of 14 CFR 121.628(b)(2) and 14
CFR 129.14, the equipment required by paragraph (l) of this AD may
be included in the Minimum Equipment List, as applicable.

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Transport Standards Staff, ANM-110, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the Transport Standards Staff, send it to
the attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(o) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jeff Gardlin,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-15683 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P