[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26651-26654]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0282; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-168-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2006-
0707, for certain A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes,
and Model C4-605R variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600
series airplanes). AD 2006-0707 requires modifying nine bolt holes in
the vertical flange of the center spar sealing angles. Since we issued
AD 2006-0707, we have received reports that fatigue and damage
tolerance analyses show that the inspection threshold and interval must
be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks. This proposed AD would
continue to require modification of bolt holes in the vertical flange
of the center spar sealing angles, and any applicable related
investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD would also
require inspections for cracks, a modification by cold expansion of the
center spar sealing angles, replacement of both sealing angles and cold
expansion of the attachment holes if necessary, and post-repair
repetitive inspections and corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to prevent crack formation in the sealing angles,
which could rupture the sealing angle and lead to subsequent crack
formation in the bottom skin of the wing, and result in reduced
structural integrity of the center spar section of the wing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 23, 2014.

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 W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0282; 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 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
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-2014-0282;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-168-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

    On March 15, 2006, we issued AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71
FR 16206, March 21, 2006). A correction of that AD was published in the
Federal Register on April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530). That AD required
actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model
A300-600 series airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206,
March 21, 2006), we have received a report that additional actions are
needed to address the unsafe condition. In addition, airplanes have
been added to applicability. The applicability of AD 2006-0707 excluded
airplanes on which Airbus Modification 8609 was incorporated. We have
determined that those airplanes must be inspected to address the unsafe
condition. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD 2012-

0194, dated September 25, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Fatigue testing applied to a test airframe confirmed the
initiation of cracks on the sealing angles of the centre spar,
adjacent to rib 8, which could lead to the rupture of the sealing
angles and the subsequent crack initiation in the bottom skin of the
wing.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [French Civil Aviation
Authority] France issued to require inspection of centre spar
sealing angles adjacent to pylon rear attachment fittings of Left
Hand (LH) and Right Hand (RH) wings.
    Early cracks reported on an in-service aeroplane prompted Airbus
to conduct additional investigations. Based on the results, DGAC
France issued AD 2003-290 (later revised), which superseded DGAC
France AD 91-253-128(B), to require modification of the affected
aeroplanes as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6033
(Airbus Mod 8609), as well as post-modification repetitive
inspections.
    Since DGAC France AD 2003-290(B)R1 was issued, a fleet survey
and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been
performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended
Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have
shown that the inspection threshold and interval must be reduced to
allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing angles of the centre
spar, adjacent to rib 8.
    For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD 2003-290(B) R1, which is superseded,
and requires the accomplishment instructions at the new thresholds
and intervals given by Revision 07 of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB)
A300-57-6027.

    The required actions also include repetitive high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspections of the center spar sealing angles adjacent
to the pylon re attachment fitting for cracks, modifying the airplane
by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles outboard of rib 8
if necessary, replacing both of the forward and aft sealing angles with
new sealing angles and cold expanding the attachment holes if
necessary, and doing post-repair repetitive inspections and corrective
actions if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2014-0282.
    Depending on the airplane configuration and airplane utilization,
the compliance times are as follows:
     For normal range operations, the initial compliance time
for the new actions ranges between 9,000 flight cycles and 19,500
flight cycles, or within 18,600 flight hours and 40,300 flight hours.
The grace period for the action is within 1,700 flight cycles, or
within 3,500 flight hours.
     For short range operations, the initial compliance time
for the new actions ranges between 10,600 flight cycles and 23,000
flight cycles, or within 15,900 flight hours and 34,500 flight hours.
The grace period for the action is within 2,000 flight cycles, or
within 3,000 flight hours.
     For normal range operations, the repetitive interval for
the inspection is 5,100 flight cycles or 10,500 flight hours.
     For short-range operations, the repetitive interval for
the inspection is 6,000 flight cycles or 9,000 flight hours.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated
June 6, 2011, and Service Bulletin A300-57-6033, Revision 02, dated
September 19, 2011. 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.
    In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies
to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain
discrepancies are found, we typically include in the AD a requirement
to accomplish the action using a method approved by either the FAA or
the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).
    We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries
do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do
recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become
aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were
previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval
Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs.
Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions
come from the airplane structural repair manual or the DAH repair
approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the
unsafe condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that
were not specifically approved for a particular AD creates the
potential for doing repairs that were not developed to address the
unsafe condition identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the
applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe
condition not being fully corrected.
    To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed
to correct the unsafe condition, this proposed AD would require that
the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change is
intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators
with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and
approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we use the
phrase ``its delegated agent, or by the DAH with State of Design
Authority design organization approval, as applicable'' in this
proposed AD to refer to an DAH authorized to approve required repairs
for this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 21 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534
(71 FR 16206, March 21, 2006), and retained in this proposed AD take
about 25 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work hour. Required parts cost about $1,249 per product. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $2,374
per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $14,280, or $680
per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 42 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost
of $13,570 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

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);
    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.

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

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)
2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 21, 2006);
(corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), and adding the following new
AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0282; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
168-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 23, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR
16206, March 21, 2006); (corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and
B4-622, B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, Model A300 F4-605R and F4-
622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes,
certificated in any category, except those on which Airbus
Modification 8608 is incorporated.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that fatigue and damage
tolerance analyses shows that the inspection threshold and interval
must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing
angles of the center spar, adjacent to rib 8. We are issuing this AD
to prevent crack formation in the sealing angles; such cracks could
rupture the sealing angle and lead to subsequent crack formation in
the bottom skin of the wing, and resultant reduced structural
integrity of the center spar section of the wing.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Retained Modification

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 21, 2006). For
A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-
605R variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series
airplanes); except those on which Airbus Modification 8608 or 8609
is incorporated: Within 500 flight cycles after April 17, 2006 (the
effective date of AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534, modify nine
bolt holes in the vertical flange of the center spar sealing angles
outboard of rib 8, adjacent to the pylon attachment fitting, and do
any applicable related investigative and corrective actions before
further flight; by doing all the actions in and in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6033, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2003. If any crack is found
during the related investigative action: Before further flight,
repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 06, dated March 2, 2005.

(h) Retained No Reporting Required

    This paragraph restates the reporting information of paragraph
(g) of AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 21,
2006). Although Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033, Revision 01,
dated December 18, 2003, specifies to report crack findings to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(i) New Requirement of this AD: Inspection and Modification

    For all airplanes, at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs
(i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD concurrently. Repeat the inspection
required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not
to exceed the values as specified in the ``Repeat Interval'' column
in Table 1 or Table 2 of Airbus A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated
June 6, 2011, as applicable to the airplane configuration and
utilization; except as required by paragraph (m)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the
center spar sealing angles adjacent to the pylon re-attachment
fitting for cracks, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07,
dated June 6, 2011.
    (2) Unless already done: Modify the airplane by cold expansion
of the center spar sealing angles outboard of Rib 8, adjacent to the
pylon rear attachment fitting, including doing the eddy current
inspections for cracks of the bolt holes, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033,
Revision 02, dated September 19, 2011.

(j) Initial Compliance Times

    At the later of the times specified in paragraph (j)(1) and
(j)(2) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD,
do the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (1) At the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 and
Table 2 in the ``Threshold Inspection,'' column in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision
07, dated June 6, 2011.
    (2) At the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 and
Table 2 in the ``Grace Period,'' column in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision
07, dated June 6, 2011.

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Corrective Action

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, repair the
crack by replacing both of the forward and aft sealing angles with
new sealing angles and cold expansion of the attachment holes, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. The
corrective actions, as required by this paragraph, does not
constitute as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Post Modification Actions

    After modification of the airplane, as specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-

57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011: Within 3 months after the
effective date of this AD, or before further flight after doing the
modification, whichever occurs later, contact the FAA, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, or EASA (or its delegated agent, or
the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with EASA design organization
approval, as applicable) for repetitive post-repair inspections and
corrective actions, and do those actions.

(m) Exceptions to the Service Bulletin

    (1) Where Note 01 and Note 02 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6,
2011, specifies to contact Airbus for inspection requirements, this
AD requires, at the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1
and Table 2 in the ``Grace Period,'' column in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision
07, dated June 6, 2011, to repair using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its
delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with EASA
design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to
be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (2) Where the Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07,
dated June 6, 2011 specifies a compliance time in Table 1 and Table
2 in the ``Grace Period,'' column in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time
after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6,
2011, specifies a choice between flight cycle or flight hours, this
AD requires a compliance time within the specified flight cycles or
flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (4) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6,
2011, specifies pre-modification 8609, this AD requires compliance
within the compliance time specified in the ``Threshold Inspection''
column. Those compliance times are flight cycles or flight hours
since new.
    (5) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6,
2011, specifies any post modification or repair, this AD requires
compliance within the compliance time specified in the ``Threshold
Inspection'' column. Those compliance times are flight cycles or
flight hours since accomplishing the modification or repair.

(n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the service information in paragraph
(n)(i) through (n)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 04, dated
August 4, 1999.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 05, dated
November 21, 2002.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 06, dated
March 2, 2005.

(o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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 International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-
2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD. AMOCs approved previously for AD 98-
18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), are
approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions in paragraph (g)
of this AD.
    (3) 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.

(p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2012-0194, dated September 25, 2012, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2014-0282.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 2, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-10682 Filed 5-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 24057-24059]
[DOCID:fr22my09-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59934; File No. SR-BATS-2009-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
BATS Rule 11.13, entitled ``Order Execution''

May 15, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 12, 2009, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' 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 Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 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 is proposing to amend BATS Rule 11.13, entitled
``Order Execution,'' to provide Users \5\ of the Exchange with another
option with respect to the Exchange's method of processing the unfilled
balance of a limit order that returns to the Exchange after being
routed away to one or more away Trading Centers \6\ for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(bb).
    \6\ As defined in BATS Rule 2.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 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 the proposed rule change is to provide Users of the
Exchange with another option with respect to the Exchange's method of
processing the unfilled balance of a limit order that returns to the
Exchange after being routed away to one or more away Trading Centers
for execution. In connection with this additional option, the Exchange
has also proposed various clarifying changes related to the
functionality of the current processing options.
    The Exchange currently allows Users to submit various types of
limit orders to the Exchange that are processed pursuant to Rules
11.13(a)(1) and 11.13(a)(2)(B), as set forth below. Rule 11.13(a)(1)
describes the process by which an incoming order would execute against
the BATS Book.\7\ To the extent an order has not been executed in its
entirety against the BATS Book, Rule 11.13(a)(2)(B) then describes the
process of routing marketable limit orders \8\ to one or more Trading
Centers, including a description of how the Exchange treats any
unfilled balance that returns to the Exchange following the first
attempt to fill the order through the routing process. Currently, the
Exchange either converts such unfilled balance to a BATS Only order,
and processes it in accordance with Rule 11.9(c)(4) or again checks the
BATS Book for liquidity, then routes the order to away Trading Centers
until the Exchange has confirmed that no available liquidity exists on
the BATS Book or at away Trading Centers and the order's limit price
has been reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(d).
    \8\ Market orders are also routed away, pursuant to Rule
11.13(a)(2)(A), however the Exchange is not proposing any changes to
the treatment of routed market orders at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 11.13 make
the process described above more clear. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to offer Users a third option for processing of the unfilled
balance that returns to the Exchange. As proposed, the new Rule
11.13(a)(2)(B) will allow Users to instruct the Exchange to execute the
order against the BATS Book and route the order to away Trading Centers
up to the limit price of the order. At the limit price, the Exchange
will attempt to execute the order against the BATS Book one time and
attempt to fill the order at one or more away Trading Centers, and then
cancel any unfilled balance of the order back to the User. This differs
from the second option because under the new, proposed option, after
routing the order away at the limit price, the Exchange will not again
check the BATS Book for available liquidity before canceling the order
back to the User.
2. Statutory Basis
    The rule change proposed in this submission is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\
because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest, by allowing Users to instruct the Exchange to
attempt to execute their orders at the applicable limit price against
the BATS Book and then at one or more away Trading Centers, but then to
promptly cancel the remaining balance back. This functionality will
allow the Exchange to seek to execute the order as promptly as possible
but will also provide Users with a faster response as to whether their
orders have been executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\13\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. BATS states that
implementation of the order type described in this filing will provide
BATS Users with another option with respect to the handling of orders
routed away from the Exchange that is completely optional, and will not
require any programming changes by BATS Users unless they choose to use
the new functionality.\15\ The Commission believes that waiving the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest because such waiver will allow BATS Users to
immediately benefit from this minor variation to the order handling
used by the Exchange today pursuant to the Exchange's existing rules.
In addition, the Commission notes that the proposal does not raise any
new substantive issues. The Commission hereby grants

the Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission 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 satisfied this notice requirement.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See SR-BATS-2009-013, Item 7.
    \16\ For the 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 such 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 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BATS-2009-013 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 No. SR-BATS-2009-013. 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 changes between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of BATS. 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-BATS-2009-013 and should be
submitted on or before June 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-11941 Filed 5-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


April 24, 2019  -  WA HHC Reconsideration
Tribal Informational Call #1

Tribal Attendees:
Yakama Nation
Tulalip
CRITFC
Puyallup
Makah
Stillaguamish
Cowlitz
Colville
Lower Elwha
NW Indian Fisheries Commission
RTOC
Nez Perce
Umatilla
Shoshone-Bannock
Jamestown S'Klallam
Quileute
Suquamish
Squaxin Island
Kalispel
Snoqualmie
Skokomish

EPA Attendees: Chris Hladick, Angela Chung, Wenona Wilson, Hanh Shaw, Matt Szelag and Felicia Wright

Questions and Comments from Tribal Attendees

 The decision will be made by HQ water staff? No one from HQ on this call, correct? Will there be an opportunity to talk with the folks at HQ?
 Is it possible to discuss or describe what was put out in the federal register  -  the memo put forward a public comment period; with this decision that's looming to approve or deny the petition, what is the consideration re: implementation of the 2016 standards  -  CWA and ARARs/CERCLA  -  big change and disruption to ongoing efforts to protect the Columbia River; fully implemented on the cleanup side; is EPA going to take into consideration the potential implications of the cleanup values; sites in the feasibility study and cleanup action plan phase?
 Discuss the rationale for the decision  -  is it cost based or toxics (health based)? Did EPA take into account the ARARs  -  WA requires not to exceed 10[-6] for protection of human health; seems like tribal fish consumption is at risk and what other subpopulations are not protected?
 Would the process be same as a petition to reconsider previous decision? If a new petition was issued would it have equal consideration?
 You are experiencing lots of quietness on the phone because tribes are unfamiliar with the process; in no way does this mean consultation with tribes; why is the petition given so much weight; the process started with the tribes and the state 20 years ago; the same people who petitioned were at the same process that concluded the process that is in place; through another process, they get to come back and make a petition; the decision was made  -  find it confusing that EPA is purporting to lessen the stringency of the standards; increase the cancer rate; WA state even said they are not interested in doing this  -  where does this come into the reconsideration? Are you just going through the process and a decision has been made? Throughout the process, best available science has been used; it is confounding that we are lessening the protections
 If decision is based on petition being submitted  -  there are a lot of inaccuracies, including representation of treaties; EPA has obligations to tribes and this was done without any consultation; would EPA consult with tribes prior to the rulemaking? Will there be consultation prior to making a decision to reverse disapproval?
 Confirm there will not be consultation prior to making the decision to reconsider? The federal rulemaking process would follow, but isn't that just the pro-forma process to instill the decision? Have you granted the decision to reconsider? In 2016, EPA adopted a government-to-government consultation policy and policy on tribal treaty rights  -  treaty rights are affected by the decision; next steps involve conducting legal and policy analysis to assess/determine how rights are protected as part of reconsideration?
 Clarify when will the decision occur? In the next month or so?
 What exactly is the purpose of this call? Just to report out that this is occurring or is EPA accepting feedback? How much consideration would EPA give to tribal input? It's hard to understand how this complies with the APA; there was a huge process that went into the partial approval/disapproval; there does not seem to be the same openness  -  feels closed off; trying to understand how to be open or engaged.
 What type of analysis is to be done to understand that the disapproved WQS are now less damaging; what is the justification for reversing; what's the analysis/what new information? If we cannot talk about the details, what are we doing today then? I feel that the decision has already been made and hope and feel that's not the case
 Thank you for taking the call; it's a big deal in Indian Country; acknowledge this is not consultation; taken aback  -  appreciate the explanation; thought we would have a chance to express concerns; will write letter to demand a consultation and ask EPA to deny petition. Any decision should be science based and not politics based; there was a lot of time put into developing the rule, and the reconsideration due to a petition took almost no time; how does EPA fulfill its trust obligation associated with this decision?
 Interested in hearing about EPA's process with WA state regarding reconsideration. On July 10, 2017 NWIFC sent EPA a lengthy response to the petition; no response from EPA; what is the timeframe and opportunities for engagement?
 How long are the state submittals held and make alive again (i.e. is Washington's 2016 submittal still alive for EPA to act on again)? How long are they viable?
 Assuming a decision to approve the criteria is in the next month, do you have a timeline for the next steps? Tribal consultation?
 If a decision is made to grant petition  -  is it possible to end up with the exact same record the first time around, or would it change? The admin record that went into the first decision (federal rulemaking)  -  would it stand or would it be washed clean? If a new decision is based on a new record, then that's concerning because a lot of time and information went into the previous decision.
 If EPA moves forward with the reversal then withdraws the federal rule, what would remain in effect?
 Our only option seems to be entirely legal to delay and constrain EPA from taking this action; I have worked on these standards for 30 years during the process; seems like the strategy is to litigate and delay the effectiveness of the state's standards (to keep the federal standards that we have fought so hard to put in place)
 What is the EPA process for the 2017 petition?  -  sounds pretty clear from the intro statements, EPA does not intend to have a public process prior to making the decision on the reconsideration; concerned about the administrative record  -  would there be a public process? Why won't you have a public process to build the record?
 Please explain what the scope of the record would be for step 1 of the decision process? When can we expect the decision to reconsider? And when is the decision finalized?
 If there is or is not an opportunity to weigh in, how do we have direct communication with those who will make the decision?
 EPA acknowledged that this is not consultation, you acknowledge in your letter this is late notice; you're not willing to discuss the details of the decision in this call; you said the decision will be based on Ecology's 2016 submittal, which acknowledges treaty rights. We asked for input on step 1  -  help us understand why you are not consulting?
 What consultation did EPA do with the petitioners; could we have the same opportunity with HQ?
 The tribe opposes reconsideration  -  please take back to DC; please summarize why we are reconsidering, what were the substance of their arguments, what's wrong with the criteria and what new information has been provided? Have you also looked at how the ID and WA decisions are same/different than OR's?
 EPA committed to working with tribes and the RTOC on subsistence issues, how do you reconcile the issue of the tribes eating fish that are less safe?


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59014-59016]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20459]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78632; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.22, Data Products, To Adopt a New Market Data Product Known as
BZX Summary Depth

August 22, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 11, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') 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 Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 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 filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.22 to adopt a new
market data product known as BZX Summary Depth.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 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 Rule 11.22 to adopt a new market
data product known as BZX Summary Depth. BZX Summary Depth would be a
data feed that offers aggregated two-sided quotations for all displayed
orders entered into the System \5\ for up to five (5) price levels for
securities traded on the Exchange and for which the Exchange reports
quotes under the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan or the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan. BZX Summary Depth also contains the individual last
sale information, Market Status, Trading Status, and Trade Break
messages. The individual last sale information will include the price,
size, and time of execution. The last sale message will also include
the cumulative number of shares executed on the Exchange for that
trading day. The Exchange will disseminate the aggregate Best Bid and
Offer (``BBO'') and last sale information through BZX Summary Depth no
earlier than it provides its BBO and last sale information to the
processors under the CTA Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``System'' is defined as the ``the electronic communications
and trading facility designated by the Board through which
securities orders of Users Are consolidated for ranking, execution
and, when applicable, routing away.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(aa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Market Status message will reflect a change in the status of
the Exchange. For example, the Market Status message would indicate
whether the Exchange is experiencing a systems issue or disruption
resulting in quotation or trade information not currently being
disseminated as part of the aggregated BBO. The Market Status message
will also indicate when Exchange has resolved a systems issue or
disruption and is properly reflecting the status of the aggregated BBO.
The Trade Break message will indicate when an execution is broken in
accordance with Exchange rules.\6\ The Trading Status message will
indicate the current trading status of a security on the Exchange. For
example, a Trading Status message will be sent when a short sale price
restriction is in effect pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO
(``Short Sale Circuit Breaker''),\7\ or when the security is subject to
a trading halt, suspension or pause declared by the listing market. A
Trading Status message will be sent whenever a security's trading
status changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Exchange Rule 11.17, Clearly Erroneous
Executions.
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.200(g); 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to offer BZX Summary Depth as of January 3,
2017. Prior to January 3, 2017, the Exchange will file a separate rule
change with the Commission proposing fees to be charged for BZX Summary
Depth.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange understands that its affiliated exchanges
intend to file identical proposed rule changes to adopt rules and
fees for the Book Viewer data feed with the Commission. The
Exchange's affiliates are Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., (``EDGA''), Bats
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), and Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``BZX'') (``collectively, the ``Bats Exchanges'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change 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 prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to

promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and to protect investors and the public interest, and
that it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among
customers, brokers, or dealers. This proposal is in keeping with those
principles in that it promotes increased transparency through the
dissemination of BZX Summary Depth. The Exchange also believes this
proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it
protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and
equitable principles of trade by providing investors with an
alternative for receiving market data as requested by market data
vendors and purchasers that expressed an interest in exchange-only data
for instances where consolidated data is no longer required to be
purchased and displayed. The proposed rule change would benefit
investors by facilitating their prompt access to real-time depth-of-
book information contained in BZX Summary Depth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 11(A) of the Act \11\ in that it supports (i)
fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability of information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in securities to brokers, dealers, and investors.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\12\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. BZX Summary Depth would be accessed and subscribed to
on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data
distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data
available. Accordingly, distributors and subscribers can discontinue
their use at any time and for any reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \12\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was
believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available
to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and
competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes
that the data products proposed herein are precisely the sort of market
data products that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation
NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by lessening
regulation of the market in proprietary data--would itself further the
Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (``Regulation
NMS Adopting Release'').

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history.
    In addition, BZX Summary Depth removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by
providing investors with alternative market data and competing with
similar market data products currently offered by the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') and the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'').\14\ The provision of new options for investors to receive
market data was a primary goal of the market data amendments adopted by
Regulation NMS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023(a)(1)(C) (describing Nasdaq TotalView
as a depth-of-book data feed that includes all orders and quotes
from all Nasdaq members displayed in the Nasdaq Market Center as
well as the aggregate size of such orders and quotes at each price
level in the execution functionality of the Nasdaq Market Center).
See NYSE OpenBook available at http://www.nyxdata.com/openbook (last
visited July 5, 2016) (providing real-time view of the NYSE limit
order book including the aggregated size at each price level). See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 46843 (November 18, 2002), 67
FR 70471 (November 22, 2002) (SR-NASD-2002-33) (order approving fees
for Nasdaq TotalView); and 45138 (December 7, 2001), 66 FR 64895
(December 14, 2001) (SR-NYSE-2001-42) (order approving fees for NYSE
OpenBook).
    \15\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\16\ The Exchange
believes that the proposal will promote competition by enabling the
Exchange to offer a market data product similar to that currently
offered by the NYSE and Nasdaq.\17\ Thus, the Exchange believes this
proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among
national securities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Bats One Feed is a data feed that disseminates, on a
real-time basis, the aggregate BBO of all displayed orders for
securities traded on each of the Bats Exchanges and for the Bats
Exchanges report quotes under the CTA Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.
The Bats One Feed also contains the individual last sale information
for the Bats Exchanges (collectively with the aggregate BBO, the
``Bats One Summary Feed''). In addition, the Bats One Feed contains
optional functionality which enables recipients to receive
aggregated two-sided quotations from the Bats Exchanges for up to
five (5) price levels (``Bats One Premium Feed''). See Exchange Rule
11.22(i). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73918
(December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31, 2014) (File Nos. SR-
EDGX-2014-25; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-BATS-2014-055; SR-BYX-2014-030)
(Notice of Amendments No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
to Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to
Establish a New Market Data Product called the Bats One Feed)
(``Bats One Approval Order''). The Exchange uses the following data
feeds to create the Bats One Feed, each of which are available to
vendors: EDGX Depth, EDGA Depth, BYX PITCH Feed, and the BZX PITCH
Feed. The Exchange notes that a vendor could utilize the proposed
BZX Summary Depth Feed, as well as the summarized depth feeds to be
proposed by BYX, EDGA, and EDGX to create a competing product to the
Bats One Feed. Supra note 8. The Exchange represents that a
competing vendor could obtain these data feeds from each Bats
Exchange on the same latency basis as the system that performs the
aggregation and consolidation of the Bats One Feed. See Bats One
Approval Order. While the proposed BZX Summary Depth Feed does not
contain the symbol summary or consolidated volume data included in
the Bats One Feed, a vendor could include this information in a
competing product as this information is easily derivable from the
proposed feeds or can be obtained from the securities information
processors on the same terms as the Exchange.
    \17\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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 No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-50 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 No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-50. 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 No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-50, and should be
submitted on or before September 16, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20459 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 66892]
[DOCID:fr12no08-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-138-000]

FPL Energy Oliver Wind I, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

November 4, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
FPL Energy Oliver Wind I, Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 24, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-26773 Filed 11-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50156-50158]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20504]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0455; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-4]

Proposed Establishment of Class D and E Airspace; Frederick, MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D and E airspace at
Frederick, MD, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs) at Frederick Municipal Airport. This action would enhance the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for
SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before September 26,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2011-0455; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-04, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Horrocks, Airspace Specialist,
Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization,

Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia
30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify
both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address
listed above. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0455; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-4.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/. Additionally, any person may obtain
a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-
400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for
this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-
9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the
application procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class D airspace extending
upward from the surface to 2,800 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of
Frederick Municipal Airport. Class E surface area airspace, within a 5-
mile radius of the airport and Class E airspace designated as an
extension to Class D surface area. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the new RNAV GPS standard instrument approach procedures developed for
the airport and for continued safety and management of IFR operations
at Frederick Municipal Airport.
    Designations for Class D and E airspace areas are published in
Paragraphs 5000, 6002 and 6004 respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U,
dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (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);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would establish Class D and E airspace at
Frederick Municipal Airport, Frederick, MD.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 will continue to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

AEA MD D Frederick, MD [NEW]

Frederick Municipal Airport, MD
    (Lat. 39[deg]25[min]03[sec] N., long. 77[deg]22[min]28[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending from the surface up to and including
2,800 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Frederick Municipal
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas

* * * * *

AEA MD E2 Frederick, MD [NEW]

Frederick Municipal Airport, MD
    (Lat. 39[deg]25[min]03[sec] N., long. 77[deg]22[min]28[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending from the surface up to and including
2,800 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Frederick Municipal
Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D surface area.

* * * * *

AEA MD E4 Frederick, MD [NEW]

Frederick Municipal Airport, MD
    (Lat. 39[deg]25[min]03[sec] N., long. 77[deg]22[min]28[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending from the surface within 3.2 miles either
side of the 036[deg]

bearing from the airport extending from the 5 mile radius to 7.6
miles northeast of the airport. This Class E airspace area is
effective during specific dates and times established in advance by
a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 5, 2011.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-20504 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 6140]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2445-027]

Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-
Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing
Process: Green Mountain Power Corporation

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2445-027.
    c. Date Filed: December 21, 2018.
    d. Submitted By: Green Mountain Power Corporation (Green Mountain).
    e. Name of Project: Center Rutland Project.
    f. Location: On Otter Creek in the Town of Rutland, Rutland County,
Vermont. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located
within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 and 5.5 of the Commission's
regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Jason Lisai, Director of Generation
Operations, Green Mountain Power Corporation, 163 Acorn Lane,
Colchester, VT 05446;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Baummer at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Green Mountain filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on December 21, 2018, and provided public notice of
the request on December 20, 2018. In a letter dated February 19, 2019,
the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Green
Mountain's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7
of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the Vermont State Historic Preservation Officer, as
required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and
the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Green Mountain as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and
consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. Green Mountain filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including
a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to
18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(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, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
2152 Post Road, Rutland, VT 05701.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a subsequent license for Project No. 2445. Pursuant to
18 CFR 16.20, each application for a subsequent license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by December 31,
2021.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: February 19, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03265 Filed 2-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 127)]
[Notices]
[Page 37518-37519]
[DOCID:fr01jy08-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58016, File No. SR-MSRB-2008-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to MSRB
Rule G-34, CUSIP Numbers and New Issue Requirements, to Require
Underwriter Registration and Testing with Depository Trust and Clearing
Corporation's New Issue Information Dissemination System

June 25, 2008.
    On May 9, 2008, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change consisting of changes to Rule G-34, CUSIP Numbers
and New Issue Requirements. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on May 22, 2008.\3\ The Commission
received no comment letters about the proposed rule change. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57830 (May 16,
2008), 73 FR 29799 (May 22, 2008) (``Commission's Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would require underwriters to register and
conduct tests with the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation's
(``DTCC'') New Issue Information Dissemination System (``NIIDS''). The
proposed rule change would help ensure that dealers are prepared for
the September 30, 2008 effective date of changes to other MSRB rules to
require underwriters to participate in NIIDS.\4\ Accordingly, the
proposed rule change would require all brokers, dealers and municipal
securities dealers (collectively ``dealers'') that have acted as
underwriter \5\ in the last year on a new issue of municipal securities
with nine months or greater effective maturity to register to use NIIDS
with DTCC and successfully test NIIDS prior to September 15, 2008.\6\
On an ongoing

basis the proposed rule change would require dealers to register to use
NIIDS with DTCC and successfully test NIIDS prior to acting as
underwriter on a new issue of municipal securities with nine months or
greater effective maturity. A full description of the proposal is
contained in the Commission's Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57750 (May 1, 2008),
73 FR 25815 (May 7, 2008).
    \5\ Rule G-34 defines ``underwriter'' very broadly to include a
dealer acting as a placement agent as well as any dealer purchasing
new issue securities from the issuer as principal. If there is an
underwriting syndicate, the lead manager is considered to be the
``underwriter'' for purposes of Rule G-34.
    \6\ Many underwriters have already registered with DTCC and
initiated NIIDS testing. The proposed rule change would place a
deadline on underwriters to register with DTCC and complete NIIDS
testing. Underwriters that have already satisfied the requirements
of the proposed rule change prior to SEC approval are not required
to re-register or re-test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB \7\ and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \8\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder. Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires, among
other things, that the MSRB's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market in municipal securities, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.\9\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act because it will allow the municipal securities industry to produce
more accurate trade reporting and transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2008-04), be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. E8-14857 Filed 6-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2328]
[FR Doc No: 2012-892]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January
19, 2012 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
January 19, 2012 will be:

institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and
settlement of administrative proceedings; other matters relating to
enforcement proceedings; and an adjudicatory matter.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-892 Filed 1-12-12; 4:15 pm]
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 30, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-18777

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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).

In the matter of:  Ghana Airways Limited

We grant, sua sponte, Ghana Airways Limited (Ghana Airways) an exemption
from 49 U.S.C. § 41301

to the extent necessary to permit Ghana Airways to engage in scheduled
foreign air transportation of persons (and accompanying baggage) in the
New York/Baltimore-Accra, Ghana market, in both directions, using
aircraft wet leased from a duly authorized and properly supervised U.S.
or foreign air carrier.  We are taking this action for the sole purpose
of accommodating Ghana Airways passengers who have been stranded
following Ghana Airways’ recent suspension of services to the United
States.  Accordingly, the authority granted here is limited to the
carriage of stranded passengers, already booked and ticketed, who are
completing the return leg of a round trip itinerary.

Applicant representative:  Malcolm L. Benge<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved									Action date:  July 30, 2004

We took the action described above solely to permit the repatriation of
passengers to Ghana or the United States.  Our action here in no way
should be viewed as an indication of how the Department will act on any
future requests by Ghana Airways to conduct services between Ghana and
the United States.

Effective dates of authority granted:  July 30, 2004-August 15, 2004

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  X  Standard conditions
(attached)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  The authority
granted to Ghana Airways, in addition to the conditions described above,
is subject to the condition that the transportation of the stranded
passengers is done at no additional charge to the passenger beyond that
already included in the passenger’s ticket or in the original
agreement between the passenger and Ghana Airways.  In order to assure
that no additional Ghana Airways passengers become stranded, the
Department’s action does not allow for passengers to embark on initial
outbound travel from the United States or Ghana.  In addition, in
granting the authority described above, we expect Ghana Airways to
continue to make all possible efforts to address the needs of its other
affected passengers.

Action taken by:   Karan Bhatia, Assistant Secretary for Aviation

		          and International Affairs

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385; we found that (1) without prejudice to any conclusion we might
reach with regard to Ghana Airways at a later date, given the special
circumstances present in this situation, Ghana Airways was qualified to
conduct the special and limited operations by wet lease described above;
(2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and
(3) our action does not constitute a major regulatory action under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  We may amend, modify, or
revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing
at our discretion.

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

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

Attachment

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI 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;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

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

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

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

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

														05/2004

  We note that should a duly authorized and properly supervised foreign
air carrier propose to conduct these flights, that it must first obtain
authority from the Department in the form of a statement of
authorization under 14 CFR Part 212 of the Department’s rules.

  To the extent that passengers
ar楴正瑥摥琠慂瑬浩牯牯丠睥夠牯Ⱬ䜠慨慮䄠物
慷獹洠獵⁴慴敫愠汬愠灰潲牰慩整猠整獰琠獡畳敲琠
慨⁴桴慰獳湥敧⁲獩爠瑥牵敮潴琠敨朠瑡睥祡瀠楯
瑮琠桷捩桴慰獳湥敧⁲獩琠捩敫整⹤ഠ

ø