allocations for Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and
Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). With these changes,
the proposed funding model provides fee comparability for the largest
individual entities, with the largest Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs), Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution
Venues each paying a CAT Fee of approximately $81,000 each quarter.
(i) Number of Industry Member Tiers
    In the Original Proposal, the proposed funding model had nine tiers
for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). The Operating
Committee determined that reducing the number of tiers from nine tiers
to seven tiers (and adjusting the predefined Industry Member
Percentages as well) continues to provide a fair allocation of fees
among Industry Members and appropriately distinguishes between Industry
Members with differing levels of message traffic. In reaching this
conclusion, the Operating Committee considered historical message
traffic generated by Industry Members across all exchanges and as
submitted to FINRA's OATS, and considered the distribution of firms
with similar levels of message traffic, grouping together firms with
similar levels of message traffic. Based on this, the Operating
Committee determined that seven tiers would group firms with similar
levels of

message traffic, while also achieving greater comparability in the
model for the individual CAT Reporters with the greatest market share
or message traffic.
    In developing the proposed seven tier structure, the Operating
Committee considered remaining at nine tiers, as well as reducing the
number of tiers down to seven when considering how to address the
concerns raised regarding comparability. For each of the alternatives,
the Operating Committee considered the assignment of various
percentages of Industry Members to each tier as well as various
percentages of Industry Member recovery allocations for each
alternative. Each of these options was considered in the context of its
effects on the full funding model, as changes in each variable in the
model affect other variables in the model when allocating the total CAT
costs among CAT Reporters. The Operating Committee determined that the
seven tier alternative provided the most fee comparability at the
individual entity level for the largest CAT Reporters, while both
providing logical breaks in tiering for Industry Members with different
levels of message traffic and a sufficient number of tiers to provide
for the full spectrum of different levels of message traffic for all
Industry Members.
(ii) Allocation of CAT Costs Between Equity and Options Execution
Venues
    The Operating Committee also determined to adjust the allocation of
CAT costs between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues
to enhance comparability at the individual entity level. In the
Original Proposal, 75% of Execution Venue CAT costs were allocated to
Equity Execution Venues, and 25% of Execution Venue CAT costs were
allocated to Options Execution Venues. To achieve the goal of increased
comparability at the individual entity level, the Operating Committee
analyzed a range of alternative splits for revenue recovery between
Equity and Options Execution Venues, along with other changes in the
proposed funding model. Based on this analysis, the Operating Committee
determined to allocate 67 percent of Execution Venue costs recovered to
Equity Execution Venues and 33 percent to Options Execution Venues. The
Operating Committee determined that a 67/33 allocation between Equity
and Options Execution Venues enhances the level of fee comparability
for the largest CAT Reporters. Specifically, the largest Equity and
Options Execution Venues would pay a quarterly CAT Fee of approximately
$81,000.
    In developing the proposed allocation of CAT costs between Equity
and Options Execution Venues, the Operating Committee considered
various different options for such allocation, including keeping the
original 75%/25% allocation, as well as shifting to a 70%/30%, 67%/33%,
or 57.75%/42.25% allocation. For each of the alternatives, the
Operating Committee considered the effect each allocation would have on
the assignment of various percentages of Equity Execution Venues to
each tier as well as various percentages of Equity Execution Venue
recovery allocations for each alternative. Moreover, each of these
options was considered in the context of the full model, as changes in
each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when
allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. The Operating
Committee determined that the 67%/33% allocation between Equity and
Options Execution Venues provided the greatest level of fee
comparability at the individual entity level for the largest CAT
Reporters, while still providing for appropriate fee levels across all
tiers for all CAT Reporters.
(iii) Allocation of Costs Between Execution Venues and Industry Members
    The Operating Committee determined to allocate 25% of CAT costs to
Execution Venues and 75% to Industry Members (other than Execution
Venue ATSs), as it had in the Original Proposal. The Operating
Committee determined that this 75%/25% allocation, along with the other
changes proposed above, led to the most comparable fees for the largest
Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members
(other than Execution Venue ATSs). The largest Equity Execution Venues,
Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution
Venue ATSs) would each pay a quarterly CAT Fee of approximately
$81,000.
    As a preliminary matter, the Operating Committee determined that it
is appropriate to allocate most of the costs to create, implement and
maintain the CAT to Industry Members for several reasons. First, there
are many more broker-dealers expected to report to the CAT than
Participants (i.e., 1,541 broker-dealer CAT Reporters versus 22
Participants). Second, since most of the costs to process CAT
reportable data is generated by Industry Members, Industry Members
could be expected to contribute toward such costs. Finally, as noted by
the SEC, the CAT ``substantially enhance[s] the ability of the SROs and
the Commission to oversee today's securities markets,'' \54\ thereby
benefitting all market participants. After making this determination,
the Operating Committee analyzed several different cost allocations, as
discussed further below, and determined that an allocation where 75% of
the CAT costs should be borne by the Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% should be paid by Execution Venues was
most appropriate and led to the greatest comparability of CAT Fees for
the largest CAT Reporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 67457 (Jul 18, 2012), 77
FR 45722, 45726 (Aug. 1, 2012) (``Rule 613 Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the proposed allocation of CAT costs between
Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue
ATSs), the Operating Committee considered various different options for
such allocation, including keeping the original 75%/25% allocation, as
well as shifting to an 80%/20%, 70%/30%, or 65%/35% allocation. Each of
these options was considered in the context of the full model,
including the effect on each of the changes discussed above, as changes
in each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when
allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. In particular, for
each of the alternatives, the Operating Committee considered the effect
each allocation had on the assignment of various percentages of Equity
Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other
than Execution Venue ATSs) to each relevant tier as well as various
percentages of recovery allocations for each tier. The Operating
Committee determined that the 75%/25% allocation between Execution
Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) provided
the greatest level of fee comparability at the individual entity level
for the largest CAT Reporters, while still providing for appropriate
fee levels across all tiers for all CAT Reporters.
(iv) Affiliations
    The funding principles set forth in Section 11.2 of the Plan
require that the fees charged to CAT Reporters with the most CAT-
related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as
applicable) are generally comparable (where, for these comparability
purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into consideration
affiliations between or among CAT Reporters, whether Execution Venue
and/or Industry Members). The proposed funding model satisfies this
requirement. As discussed

above, under the proposed funding model, the largest Equity Execution
Venues, Options Execution Venues, and Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs) pay approximately the same fee. Moreover, the
Operating Committee believes that the proposed funding model takes into
consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters as complexes
with multiple CAT Reporters will pay the appropriate fee based on the
proposed fee schedule for each of the CAT Reporters in the complex. For
example, a complex with a Tier 1 Equity Execution Venue and Tier 2
Industry Member will a pay the same as another complex with a Tier 1
Equity Execution Venue and Tier 2 Industry Member.
(v) Fee Schedule Changes
    Accordingly, Amendment No. 4 amends paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
the proposed fee schedule as set forth in the Original Proposal to
reflect the changes discussed in this section. Specifically, the
Operating Committee proposes to amend paragraph (a)(1) and (2) of the
proposed fee schedule to update the number of tiers, and the fees and
percentages assigned to each tier to reflect the described changes.
(D) Market Share/Message Traffic
    In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee proposed to
charge Execution Venues based on market share and Industry Members
(other than Execution Venue ATSs) based on message traffic. Commenters
questioned the use of the two different metrics for calculating CAT
Fees.\55\ The Operating Committee continues to believe that the
proposed use of market share and message traffic satisfies the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the funding principles set forth
in the CAT NMS Plan. Accordingly, the proposed funding model continues
to charge Execution Venues based on market share and Industry Members
(other than Execution Venue ATSs) based on message traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Abrogation Order at 35011; FIA Principal Traders Group
Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In drafting the Plan and the Original Proposal, the Operating
Committee expressed the view that the correlation between message
traffic and size does not apply to Execution Venues, which they
described as producing similar amounts of message traffic regardless of
size. The Operating Committee believed that charging Execution Venues
based on message traffic would result in both large and small Execution
Venues paying comparable fees, which would be inequitable, so the
Operating Committee determined that it would be more appropriate to
treat Execution Venues differently from Industry Members in the funding
model. Upon a more detailed analysis of available data, however, the
Operating Committee noted that Execution Venues have varying levels of
message traffic. Nevertheless, the Operating Committee continues to
believe that a bifurcated funding model--where Industry Members (other
than Execution Venue ATSs) are charged fees based on message traffic
and Execution Venues are charged based on market share--complies with
the Plan and meets the standards of the Exchange Act for the reasons
set forth below.
    Charging Industry Members based on message traffic is the most
equitable means for establishing fees for Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs). This approach will assess fees to Industry
Members that create larger volumes of message traffic that are
relatively higher than those fees charged to Industry Members that
create smaller volumes of message traffic. Since message traffic, along
with fixed costs of the Plan Processor, is a key component of the costs
of operating the CAT, message traffic is an appropriate criterion for
placing Industry Members in a particular fee tier.
    The Operating Committee also believes that it is appropriate to
charge Execution Venues CAT Fees based on their market share. In
contrast to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), which
determine the degree to which they produce the message traffic that
constitutes CAT Reportable Events, the CAT Reportable Events of
Execution Venues are largely derivative of quotations and orders
received from Industry Members that the Execution Venues are required
to display. The business model for Execution Venues, however, is
focused on executions in their markets. As a result, the Operating
Committee believes that it is more equitable to charge Execution Venues
based on their market share rather than their message traffic.
    Similarly, focusing on message traffic would make it more difficult
to draw distinctions between large and small exchanges, including
options exchanges in particular. For instance, the Operating Committee
analyzed the message traffic of Execution Venues and Industry Members
for the period of April 2017 to June 2017 and placed all CAT Reporters
into a nine-tier framework (i.e., a single tier may include both
Execution Venues and Industry Members). The Operating Committee's
analysis found that the majority of exchanges (15 total) were grouped
in Tiers 1 and 2. Moreover, virtually all of the options exchanges were
in Tiers 1 and 2.\56\ Given the concentration of options exchanges in
Tiers 1 and 2, the Operating Committee believes that using a funding
model based purely on message traffic would make it more difficult to
distinguish between large and small options exchanges, as compared to
the proposed bifurcated fee approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The Participants note that this analysis did not place MIAX
PEARL in Tier 1 or Tier 2 since the exchange commenced trading on
February 6, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Operating Committee also believes that it is
appropriate to treat ATSs as Execution Venues under the proposed
funding model since ATSs have business models that are similar to those
of exchanges, and ATSs also compete with exchanges. For these reasons,
the Operating Committee believes that charging Execution Venues based
on market share is more appropriate and equitable than charging
Execution Venues based on message traffic.
(E) Time Limit
    In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee did not impose
any time limit on the application of the proposed CAT Fees. As
discussed above, the Operating Committee developed the proposed funding
model by analyzing currently available historical data. Such historical
data, however, is not as comprehensive as data that will be submitted
to the CAT. Accordingly, the Operating Committee believes that it will
be appropriate to revisit the funding model once CAT Reporters have
actual experience with the funding model. Accordingly, the Operating
Committee proposes to include a sunsetting provision in the proposed
fee model. The proposed CAT Fees will sunset two years after the
operative date for the CAT Fees. Such a provision will provide the
Operating Committee and other market participants with the opportunity
to reevaluate the performance of the proposed funding model.
(F) Tier Structure/Decreasing Cost per Unit
    In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee determined to use
a tiered fee structure. The Commission and commenters questioned
whether the decreasing cost per additional unit (of message traffic in
the case of Industry Members, or of share volume in the case of
Execution Venues) in the proposed fee schedules burdens competition by
disadvantaging small

Industry Members and Execution Venues and/or by creating barriers to
entry in the market for trading services and/or the market for broker-
dealer services.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Suspension Order at 31667.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Operating Committee does not believe that decreasing cost per
additional unit in the proposed fee schedules places an unfair
competitive burden on Small Industry Members and Execution Venues.
While the cost per unit of message traffic or share volume necessarily
will decrease as volume increases in any tiered fee model using fixed
fee percentages and, as a result, Small Industry Members and small
Execution Venues may pay a larger fee per message or share, this
comment fails to take account of the substantial differences in the
absolute fees paid by Small Industry Members and small Execution Venues
as opposed to large Industry Members and large Execution Venues. For
example, under the fee proposals, Tier 7 Industry Members would pay a
quarterly fee of $105, while Tier 1 Industry Members would pay a
quarterly fee of $81,483. Similarly, a Tier 4 Equity Execution Venue
would pay a quarterly fee of $129, while a Tier 1 Equity Execution
Venue would pay a quarterly fee of $81,048. Thus, Small Industry
Members and small Execution Venues are not disadvantaged in terms of
the total fees that they actually pay. In contrast to a tiered model
using fixed fee percentages, the Operating Committee believes that
strictly variable or metered funding models based on message traffic or
share volume would be more likely to affect market behavior and may
present administrative challenges (e.g., the costs to calculate and
monitor fees may exceed the fees charged to the smallest CAT
Reporters).
(G) Other Alternatives Considered
    In addition to the various funding model alternatives discussed
above regarding discounts, number of tiers and allocation percentages,
the Operating Committee also discussed other possible funding models.
For example, the Operating Committee considered allocating the total
CAT costs equally among each of the Participants, and then permitting
each Participant to charge its own members as it deems appropriate.\58\
The Operating Committee determined that such an approach raised a
variety of issues, including the likely inconsistency of the ensuing
charges, potential for lack of transparency, and the impracticality of
multiple SROs submitting invoices for CAT charges. The Operating
Committee therefore determined that the proposed funding model was
preferable to this alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See FIA Principal Traders Group Letter at 2; Belvedere
Letter at 4[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(H) Industry Member Input
    Commenters expressed concern regarding the level of Industry Member
input into the development of the proposed funding model, and certain
commenters have recommended a greater role in the governance of the
CAT.\59\ The Participants previously addressed this concern in its
letters responding to comments on the Plan and the CAT Fees.\60\ As
discussed in those letters, the Participants discussed the funding
model with the Development Advisory Group (``DAG''), the advisory group
formed to assist in the development of the Plan, during its original
development.\61\ Moreover, Industry Members currently have a voice in
the affairs of the Operating Committee and operation of the CAT
generally through the Advisory Committee established pursuant to Rule
613(b)(7) and Section 4.13 of the Plan. The Advisory Committee attends
all meetings of the Operating Committee, as well as meetings of various
subcommittees and working groups, and provides valuable and critical
input for the Participants' and Operating Committee's consideration.
The Operating Committee continues to believe that that Industry Members
have an appropriate voice regarding the funding of the Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Abrogation Order at 35010; MFA Letter at 1-2.
    \60\ Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC
(Sept. 23, 2016) (``Plan Response Letter''); Letter from CAT NMS
Plan Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (June 29, 2017)
(``Fee Rule Response Letter'').
    \61\ Fee Rule Response Letter at 2; Plan Response Letter at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(I) Conflicts of Interest
    Commenters also raised concerns regarding Participant conflicts of
interest in setting the CAT Fees.\62\ The Participants previously
responded to this concern in both the Plan Response Letter and the Fee
Rule Response Letter.\63\ As discussed in those letters, the Plan, as
approved by the SEC, adopts various measures to protect against the
potential conflicts issues raised by the Participants' fee-setting
authority. Such measures include the operation of the Company as a not
for profit business league and on a break-even basis, and the
requirement that the Participants file all CAT Fees under Section 19(b)
of the Exchange Act. The Operating Committee continues to believe that
these measures adequately protect against concerns regarding conflicts
of interest in setting fees, and that additional measures, such as an
independent third party to evaluate an appropriate CAT Fee, are
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Abrogation Order at 35010; FIA Principal Traders Group
at 3.
    \63\ See Plan Response Letter at 16, 17; Fee Rule Response
Letter at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(J) Fee Transparency
    Commenters also argued that they could not adequately assess
whether the CAT Fees were fair and equitable because the Operating
Committee has not provided details as to what the Participants are
receiving in return for the CAT Fees.\64\ The Operating Committee
provided a detailed discussion of the proposed funding model in the
Plan, including the expenses to be covered by the CAT Fees. In
addition, the agreement between the Company and the Plan Processor sets
forth a comprehensive set of services to be provided to the Company
with regard to the CAT. Such services include, without limitation: User
support services (e.g., a help desk); tools to allow each CAT Reporter
to monitor and correct their submissions; a comprehensive compliance
program to monitor CAT Reporters' adherence to Rule 613; publication of
detailed Technical Specifications for Industry Members and
Participants; performing data linkage functions; creating comprehensive
data security and confidentiality safeguards; creating query
functionality for regulatory users (i.e., the Participants, and the SEC
and SEC staff); and performing billing and collection functions. The
Operating Committee further notes that the services provided by the
Plan Processor and the costs related thereto were subject to a bidding
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See FIA Principal Traders Group at 3; SIFMA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(K) Funding Authority
    Commenters also questioned the authority of the Operating Committee
to impose CAT Fees on Industry Members.\65\ The Participants previously
responded to this same comment in the Plan Response Letter and the Fee
Rule Response Letter.\66\ As the Participants previously noted, SEC
Rule 613 specifically contemplates broker-dealers contributing to the
funding of the CAT. In addition, as noted by the SEC, the CAT
``substantially enhance[s] the ability of the SROs and the Commission
to oversee today's securities markets,'' \67\

thereby benefitting all market participants. Therefore, the Operating
Committing continues to believe that it is equitable for both
Participants and Industry Members to contribute to funding the cost of
the CAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Abrogation Order at 35009-10; SIFMA Letter at 2.
    \66\ See Plan Response Letter at 9-10; Fee Rule Response Letter
at 3-4.
    \67\ Rule 613 Adopting Release at 45726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Governing or Constituent Documents
    Not applicable.
C. Implementation of Amendment
    The terms of the proposed amendment will become effective upon
filing pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) of the Exchange Act because it
establishes a fee or other charge collected on behalf of all of the
Participants in connection with access to, or use of, any facility
contemplated by the plan (including changes in any provision with
respect to distribution of any net proceeds from such fees or other
charges to the sponsors and/or participants).\68\ At any time within
sixty days of the filing of this amendment, the Commission may
summarily abrogate the amendment and require that it be refiled
pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) [sic] of Rule 608, if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors or the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a national market system or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Development and Implementation Phases
    Not applicable.
E. Analysis of Impact on Competition
    The Operating Committee does not believe that the proposed
amendment will result in any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange
Act. The Operating Committee notes that the proposed amendment
implements provisions of the CAT NMS Plan approved by the Commission,
and is designed to assist the Participants in meeting their regulatory
obligations pursuant to the Plan. Because all national securities
exchanges and FINRA are subject to the proposed CAT Fees set forth in
the proposed amendment, this is not a competitive filing that raises
competition issues between and among the exchanges and FINRA.
    Moreover, as previously described, the Operating Committee believes
that the proposed fee schedule fairly and equitably allocates costs
among CAT Reporters. In particular, the proposed fee schedule is
structured to impose comparable fees on similarly situated CAT
Reporters, and lessen the impact on smaller CAT Reporters. CAT
Reporters with similar levels of CAT activity will pay similar fees.
For example, Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) with
higher levels of message traffic will pay higher fees, and those with
lower levels of message traffic will pay lower fees. Similarly,
Execution Venue ATSs and other Execution Venues with larger market
share will pay higher fees, and those with lower levels of market share
will pay lower fees. Therefore, given that there is generally a
relationship between message traffic and/or market share to the CAT
Reporter's size, smaller CAT Reporters generally pay less than larger
CAT Reporters. Accordingly, the Operating Committee does not believe
that the CAT Fees would have a disproportionate effect on smaller or
larger CAT Reporters. In addition, ATSs and exchanges will pay the same
fees based on market share. Therefore, the Operating Committee does not
believe that the fees will impose any burden on the competition between
ATSs and exchanges. Accordingly, the Operating Committee believes that
the proposed fees will minimize the potential for adverse effects on
competition between CAT Reporters in the market.
    Furthermore, the tiered, fixed fee funding model limits the
disincentives to providing liquidity to the market. Therefore, the
proposed fees are structured to limit burdens on competitive quoting
and other liquidity provision in the market.
    In addition, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed
changes to the Original Proposal, as discussed above in detail, address
certain competitive concerns raised by commenters, including concerns
related to, among other things, smaller ATSs, ATSs trading OTC Equity
Securities, market making quoting and fee comparability. As discussed
above, the Operating Committee believes that the proposals address the
competitive concerns raised by commenters.
F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan.
    Not applicable.
G. Approval by Plan Sponsors in Accordance With Plan
    Section 12.3 of the Plan states that, subject to certain
exceptions, the Plan may be amended from time to time only by a written
amendment, authorized by the affirmative vote of not less than two-
thirds of all of the Participants, that has been approved by the SEC
pursuant to Rule 608 or has otherwise become effective under Rule 608.
In addition, Section 4.3(a)(vi) of the Plan requires the Operating
Committee, by Majority Vote, to authorize action to determine the
appropriate funding-related policies, procedures and practices-
consistent with Article XI. The Operating Committee has satisfied both
of these requirements.
H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment
    Not applicable.
I. Terms and Conditions of Access
    Not applicable.
J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges
    Section A of this letter describes in detail how the Operating
Committee developed the proposed CAT Fees, including a detailed
discussion of the proposed funding model for the CAT.
K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation
    Not applicable.
L. Dispute Resolution
    Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan addresses the resolution of
disputes regarding Participants' CAT Fees charged to Participants and
Industry Members. Specifically, Section 11.5 states that disputes with
respect to fees the Company charges Participants pursuant to Article XI
of the CAT NMS Plan shall be determined by the Operating Committee or a
Subcommittee designated by the Operating Committee. Decisions by the
Operating Committee or such designated Subcommittee on such matters
shall be binding on Participants, without prejudice to the rights of
any Participant to seek redress from the SEC pursuant to Rule 608 or in
any other appropriate forum. In addition, the Participants adopted
rules to establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes
related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 81500 (Aug. 30, 2017),
82 FR 42143 (Sept. 6, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. 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. In particular, the Commission seeks
comment on the following:

Allocation of Costs

    (1) Commenters' views as to whether the allocation of CAT costs is
consistent with the funding principle expressed in the CAT NMS Plan
that requires the Operating Committee to ``avoid any disincentives such
as placing an inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in
market quality.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Commenters' views as to whether the allocation of 25% of CAT
costs to the Execution Venues (including all the Participants) and 75%
to Industry Members, will incentivize or disincentivize the
Participants to effectively and efficiently manage the CAT costs
incurred by the Participants since they will only bear 25% of such
costs.
    (3) Commenters' views on the determination to allocate 75% of all
costs incurred by the Participants from November 21, 2016 to November
21, 2017 to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), when
such costs are development and build costs and when Industry Member
reporting is scheduled to commence a year later, including views on
whether such ``fees, costs and expenses . . . [are] fairly and
reasonably shared among the Participants and Industry Members'' in
accordance with the CAT NMS Plan.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Commenters' views on whether an analysis of the ratio of the
expected Industry Member-reported CAT messages to the expected SRO-
reported CAT messages should be the basis for determining the
allocation of costs between Industry Members and Execution Venues.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The Notice for the CAT NMS Plan did not provide a
comprehensive count of audit trail message traffic from different
regulatory data sources, but the Commission did estimate the ratio
of all SRO audit trail messages to OATS audit trail messages to be
1.9431. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77724 (April 27,
2016), 81 FR 30613, 30721 n.919 and accompanying text (May 17,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Any additional data analysis on the allocation of CAT costs,
including any existing supporting evidence.

Comparability

    (6) Commenters' views on the shift in the standard used to assess
the comparability of CAT Fees, with the emphasis now on comparability
of individual entities instead of affiliated entities, including views
as to whether this shift is consistent with the funding principle
expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that requires the Operating Committee to
establish a fee structure in which the fees charged to ``CAT Reporters
with the most CAT-related activity (measured by market share and/or
message traffic, as applicable) are generally comparable (where, for
these comparability purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into
consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters, whether
Execution Venues and/or Industry Members).'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Section 11.2(c) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Commenters' views as to whether the reduction in the number of
tiers for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) from nine
to seven, the revised allocation of CAT costs between Equity Execution
Venues and Options Execution Venues from a 75%/25% split to a 67%/33%
split, and the adjustment of all tier percentages and recovery
allocations achieves comparability across individual entities, and
whether these changes should have resulted in a change to the
allocation of 75% of total CAT costs to Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% of such costs to Execution Venues.

Discounts

    (8) Commenters' views as to whether the discounts for options
market-makers, equities market-makers, and Equity ATSs trading OTC
Equity Securities are clear, reasonable, and consistent with the
funding principle expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that requires the
Operating Committee to ``avoid any disincentives such as placing an
inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in market
quality,'' \74\ including views as to whether the discounts for market-
makers limit any potential disincentives to act as a market-maker and/
or to provide liquidity due to CAT fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Costs and Imposition of CAT Fees

    (9) Commenters' views as to whether the amendment provides
sufficient information regarding the amount of costs incurred from
November 21, 2016 to November 21, 2017, particularly, how those costs
were calculated, how those costs relate to the proposed CAT Fees, and
how costs incurred after November 21, 2017 will be assessed upon
Industry Members and Execution Venues;
    (10) Commenters' views as to whether the timing of the imposition
and collection of CAT Fees on Execution Venues and Industry Members is
reasonably related to the timing of when the Company expects to incur
such development and implementation costs.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (11) Commenters' views on dividing CAT costs equally among each of
the Participants, and then each Participant charging its own members as
it deems appropriate, taking into consideration the possibility of
inconsistency in charges, the potential for lack of transparency, and
the impracticality of multiple SROs submitting invoices for CAT
charges.

Burden on Competition and Barriers to Entry

    (12) Commenters' views as to whether the allocation of 75% of CAT
costs to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) imposes any
burdens on competition to Industry Members, including views on what
baseline competitive landscape the Commission should consider when
analyzing the proposed allocation of CAT costs.
    (13) Commenters' views on the burdens on competition, including the
relevant markets and services and the impact of such burdens on the
baseline competitive landscape in those relevant markets and services.
    (14) Commenters' views on any potential burdens imposed by the fees
on competition between and among CAT Reporters, including views on
which baseline markets and services the fees could have competitive
effects on and whether the fees are designed to minimize such effects.
    (15) Commenters' general views on the impact of the proposed fees
on economies of scale and barriers to entry.
    (16) Commenters' views on the baseline economies of scale and
barriers to entry for Industry Members and Execution Venues and the
relevant markets and services over which these economies of scale and
barriers to entry exist.
    (17) Commenters' views as to whether a tiered fee structure
necessarily results in less active tiers paying more per unit than
those in more active tiers, thus creating economies of scale, with
supporting information if possible.
    (18) Commenters' views as to how the level of the fees for the
least active tiers would or would not affect barriers to entry.
    (19) Commenters' views on whether the difference between the cost
per unit (messages or market share) in less active tiers compared to
the cost per unit in more active tiers creates regulatory economies of
scale that favor larger competitors and, if so:
    (a) How those economies of scale compare to operational economies
of scale; and
    (b) Whether those economies of scale reduce or increase the current
advantages enjoyed by larger competitors or otherwise alter the
competitive landscape.

    (20) Commenters' views on whether the fees could affect competition
between and among national securities exchanges and FINRA, in light of
the fact that implementation of the fees does not require the unanimous
consent of all such entities, and, specifically:
    (a) Whether any of the national securities exchanges or FINRA are
disadvantaged by the fees; and
    (b) If so, whether any such disadvantages would be of a magnitude
that would alter the competitive landscape.
    (21) Commenters' views on any potential burden imposed by the fees
on competitive quoting and other liquidity provision in the market,
including, specifically:
    (a) Commenters' views on the kinds of disincentives that discourage
liquidity provision and/or disincentives that the Commission should
consider in its analysis;
    (b) Commenters' views as to whether the fees could disincentivize
the provision of liquidity; and
    (c) Commenters' views as to whether the fees limit any
disincentives to provide liquidity.
    (22) Commenters' views as to whether the amendment adequately
responds to and/or addresses comments received on related filings.
    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 protected]. Please include
File Number 4-698 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    A. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-698.This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed plan amendment that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
amendment between the Commission and any person, other than those that
may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the Participants' offices. All comments received will be
posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that
we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-698
and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2018.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JA18.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JA18.005

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C

Appendix B

                                      Equity Execution Venue Rank and Tier
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Market share  of
                     Market participant                        share volume \76\       Rank            Tier
                                                                      (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc................    24.4118512850143               1               1
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC.................................    14.3221316394514               2               1
New York Stock Exchange LLC.................................    13.1631222177691               3               1
NYSE Arca, Inc..............................................     9.3963074291365               4               1
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.....................................     6.3267638314653               5               1
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc......................................     6.1478229789347               6               1
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc......................................     4.7643781647716               7               1
NASDAQ BX, Inc..............................................     3.1401372815484               8               1
UBS ATS.....................................................     2.3058693548856               9               1
Investors' Exchange, LLC....................................     2.1483648334229              10               1
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.....................................     1.8513467967001              11               1
CROSSFINDER.................................................     1.6894565311740              12               1
SUPERX......................................................     1.0115687555972              13               1
MS POOL (ATS-4).............................................     0.9188826526803              14               2
NASDAQ PHLX LLC.............................................     0.8009596014408              15               2
J.P. MORGAN ATS (``JPM-X'').................................     0.7936361365369              16               2
BARCLAYS ATS (``LX'').......................................     0.6719255553783              17               2
LEVEL ATS...................................................     0.6571986459767              18               2
INSTINCT X..................................................     0.5956036029620              19               2
BIDS TRADING L.P............................................     0.5837401323782              20               2
INSTINET CONTINUOUS BLOCK CROSSING SYSTEM (CBX).............     0.4723979596673              21               2
KCG MATCHING................................................     0.4682553983691              22               2
POSIT.......................................................     0.4435281677014              23               2
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.................................     0.4241409043731              24               2
SIGMA X.....................................................     0.3157563290949              25               2
MS TRAJECTORY CROSS (ATS-1).................................     0.2654339378079              26               2
NYSE American LLC...........................................     0.2342627717196              27               2
IBKR ATS....................................................     0.2038196304470              28               2
CROSSSTREAM.................................................     0.1772292674940              29               2
SIGMA X2....................................................     0.1705392273292              30               2
LIQUIDNET ATS...............................................     0.1499973113804              31               2
MILLENNIUM..................................................     0.1365496066290              32               2
CITICROSS...................................................     0.1349428742591              33               2
LIQUIDNET H20 ATS...........................................     0.1282036311445              34               2
DEALERWEB, INC..............................................     0.1156677493258              35               2
OTC LINK ATS \77\...........................................     0.1148240026713              36               3
BLOCKCROSS ATS..............................................     0.0979883294279              37               3
INSTINET CROSSING...........................................     0.0763929064441              38               3
CODA MARKETS, INC...........................................     0.0662166896390              39               3
LUMINEX TRADING & ANALYTICS LLC.............................     0.0304261486817              40               3
MS RETAIL POOL..............................................     0.0295389976553              41               3
CITIBLOC....................................................     0.0251235534421              42               3
USTOCKTRADE SECURITIES, INC.................................     0.0089509616229              43               3
AQUA SECURITIES L.P.........................................     0.0052275918715              44               3
XE..........................................................     0.0031219820548              45               3

GLOBAL OTC..................................................     0.0002467471213              46               3
BARCLAYS DIRECTEX...........................................     0.0001494994467              47               3
VARIABLE INVESTMENT ADVISORS, INC. ATS (VIAATS).............     0.0000002922675              48               4
FNC AG STOCK, LLC...........................................     0.0000000607782              49               4
DBOT ATS, LLC...............................................     0.0000000429086              50               4
PRO SECURITIES ATS..........................................     0.0000000000004              51               4
NYSE National, Inc..........................................     0.0000000000000              52               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Options Execution Venue Rank and Tier
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Market share of
                                                                 share volume
                     Market participant                            (options            Rank            Tier
                                                                contracts) \78\
                                                                      (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Exchange, Inc..........................................               17.30               1               1
NASDAQ PHLX LLC.............................................               16.89               2               1
Cboe BZX Options Exchange, Inc..............................               12.36               3               1
The NASDAQ Options Market LLC...............................               10.01               4               1
Nasdaq ISE, LLC.............................................                9.06               5               1
NYSE Arca, Inc..............................................                7.74               6               1
NYSE American LLC...........................................                7.60               7               1
Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC................                5.07               8               1
Nasdaq GEMX, LLC............................................                5.04               9               1
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.......................................                3.79              10               1
BOX Options Exchange LLC....................................                2.30              11               1
Cboe EDGX Options Exchange, Inc.............................                1.40              12               2
NASDAQ BX, Inc..............................................                0.70              13               2
MIAX PEARL, LLC.............................................                0.61              14               2
Nasdaq MRX, LLC.............................................                0.13              15               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-00314 Filed 1-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22599-22602]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0252; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-213-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The
Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, Model 720 and 720B series
airplanes, Model 727 airplanes, and Model 737-

100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by
a report of a fire which originated near the first officer's area and
caused extensive damage to the flight deck on a different airplane
model. This proposed AD would require replacing the low-pressure oxygen
hoses with non-conductive low-pressure oxygen hoses in the flight
compartment. We are proposing this AD to prevent inadvertent electrical
current from passing through an internal, anti-collapse spring of the
low-pressure oxygen hose, which can cause the low-pressure oxygen hose
to melt or burn, leading to an oxygen-fed fire and/or smoke in the
flight deck.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-
0252; 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: Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0252;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-213-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 because of 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

    We received a report indicating that, on certain The Boeing Company
Model 757 airplanes, a fire originated near the first officer's area,
which caused extensive damage to the flight deck. A Boeing
investigation found that the low pressure flexible hoses in the
pressurized flightcrew oxygen system can potentially be conductive
because of the anti-kink metallic spring inside the hose. The flight
crew oxygen system on The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, Model 720
and 720B series airplanes, Model 727 airplanes, and Model 737-100, -
200, and -200C series airplanes is almost identical to the system
installed on certain Model 757 airplanes. Therefore, Model 707
airplanes, Model 720 and 720B series airplanes, Model 727 airplanes,
and Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes may be subject to
the unsafe condition revealed on certain Model 757 airplanes. This
proposed AD is being issued to prevent inadvertent electrical current,
which can cause the low-pressure flex-hose of a flight crew or
supernumerary oxygen system to melt or burn, resulting in oxygen system
leakage and smoke or fire.

Related Rulemaking

    On March 29, 2010, we issued AD 2010-06-17, Amendment 39-16242 (75
FR 15328, March 29, 2010), applicable to certain Model 757 airplanes.
AD 2010-06-17 currently requires inspecting to verify the part number
of the low-pressure flex-hoses of the flightcrew and supernumerary
oxygen system installed under the oxygen mask stowage box at a
flightcrew and supernumerary oxygen mask location and replacing with a
new non-conductive low-pressure flex-hose of the oxygen system if
necessary. AD 2010-06-17 was prompted by reports of a low-pressure
flex-hose of a flightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to
inadvertent electrical current from a short circuit in an adjacent
audio select panel.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin A3538, dated October 2,
2013; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-35A0031, dated July 18, 2013;
and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-35A1140, dated August 28, 2013.
For information on the procedures, see this service information at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA 2014-0252.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information identified previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 530 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts                             Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost          cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace oxygen hoses..............  Up to 17 work-hours x      $297   Up to $1,742........  Up to $923,260.
                                     $85 per hour = $1,445.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0252; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-213-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 9, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, and -100B
short body airplanes; Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series
airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes; as identified in
Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3538, dated October 2, 2013.
    (2) Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727 -100C, 727-200, and 727-200F
series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
727-35A0031, dated July 18, 2013.
    (3) Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-35A1140, dated
August 28, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a fire which originated near
the first officer's area and caused extensive damage to the flight
deck on a different airplane model. We are issuing this AD to
prevent inadvertent electrical current from passing through an
internal, anti-collapse spring of the low-pressure oxygen hose,
which can cause the low-pressure oxygen hose to melt or burn,
leading to an oxygen-fed fire and/or smoke in the flight deck.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Oxygen Hose Replacement

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace
the low-pressure oxygen hoses in the flight compartment with non-
conductive low-pressure oxygen hoses, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, and -
100B short body series airplanes; Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -
400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes:
Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3538, dated October 2, 2013.
    (2) For Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-
200F series airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-35A0031,
dated July 18, 2013.
    (3) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes: Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-35A1140, dated August 28, 2013.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
low-pressure oxygen hose specified in Table 1 to paragraph (h) of
this AD, on any airplane.

                      Table 1 to Paragraph (h) of This AD--Low-Pressure Oxygen Hoses (P/N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                RE darling (aka
          Boeing specification No.                Hydroflow              B/E aerospace               REDAR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-60174-24.................................         37001-642  Not applicable (n/a)..........             (n/a)
10-60174-26.................................         37001-640  (n/a).........................             (n/a)
10-60174-25.................................         37001-641  (n/a).........................             (n/a)
10-60174-36.................................          37001-36  (n/a).........................             (n/a)

10-60174-35.................................          37001-35  173470-35.....................     40830-505-018
                                                      37001-36  173470-36.....................
                                                                ZH833-35......................
                                                                ZH833-36......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for The Boeing Company Model
737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, covered by this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for The Boeing
Company Model 707 airplanes, Model 720 and 720B series airplanes,
and Model 727 airplanes, covered by this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, Susan L. Monroe,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 14, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-09250 Filed 4-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12802-12803]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0046]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee. The National Offshore
Safety Advisory Committee advises the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security on matters and actions concerning activities directly
involved with or in support of the exploration of offshore mineral and
energy resources insofar as they relate to matters within U.S. Coast
Guard jurisdiction. Applicants selected for service on the National
Offshore Safety Advisory Committee via this solicitation will not begin
their respective terms until January 31, 2019.

DATES: Completed applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or
before May 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Applicants should send a cover letter including a statement
of interest in an appointment to the National Offshore Safety Advisory
Committee that also identifies under which membership category the
applicant is applying, along with a resume detailing the applicant's
experience via one of the following methods:
     By Email: [email protected].
     By Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> ATTN: Mr. Patrick Clark, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer; or
     By Mail: Mr. Patrick W. Clark, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee,
Commandant, (CG-OES-2)/NOSAC U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King
Jr. Avenue SE, STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick Clark, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory
Committee, Commandant, (CG-OES-2)/NOSAC U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin
Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; email
[email protected]; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Offshore Safety Advisory
Committee is a Federal Advisory Committee established in accordance
with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5
U.S.C. Appendix) to advise the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security on matters and actions concerning activities directly involved
with or in support of the exploration of offshore mineral and energy
resources insofar as they relate to matters within U.S. Coast Guard
jurisdiction.
    The Committee normally meets twice a year: Once in March in New
Orleans, Louisiana, and then in September in Houston, Texas. Each
National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee member serves a term of
office up to three (3) years. Members may serve a maximum of two (2)
consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive
no salary or reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation
from the Federal Government.
    We will consider applications for the 4 positions listed below that
will be vacant on January 31, 2019:
    (a) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises
or similar entities engaged in offshore operations;
    (b) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises
or similar entities providing diving services to the offshore industry;
    (c) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises
or similar entities providing subsea engineering, construction or
remotely operated vehicle support to the offshore industry; and,
    (d) One member of the general public;
    To be eligible, applicants for positions (a), (b), or (c) should be
employed by companies, organizations, enterprises or similar entities
associated with the exploration for, and the recovery of oil, gas and
other mineral resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf; and have
expertise, knowledge and experience regarding the technology, equipment
and techniques that are used or are being developed for use in the
exploration for, and the recovery of, offshore mineral resources.
    If you are selected as a member from the general public you will be
appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in
section 202(a) of Title 18 United States Code. As a candidate for
appointment as a Special Government Employee, applicants are required
to complete Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports (OGE Form 450).
The U.S. Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in
them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or
as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the
Designated U.S. Coast Guard Ethics Official or his or her designee may
release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. Applicants can
obtain this form by going to the website of the Office of Government
Ethics (www.oge.gov), or by contacting the individual listed above in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal Advisory
Committees in an individual capacity. See ``Revised

Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyist to Federal Advisory Committees,
Boards and Commissions'' (79 FR 47482, August 13, 2014). The position
we list for a member from the general public would be someone appointed
in their individual capacity and would be designated a Special
Government Employee as defined in 202 (a) of Title 18, United States
Code. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists as defined in Title 2 U.S.C.
1602 who are required by Title 2 U.S.C. 1603 to register with the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in
selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender
identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age
membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor.
The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse
candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Patrick Clark,
Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety
Advisory Committee, via one of the transmittal methods in the ADDRESSES
section by the deadline in the DATES section of this notice. All email
submittals will receive email receipt confirmation.

    Dated: March 20, 2018.
Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2018-05944 Filed 3-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 78770]
[DOCID:fr23de08-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-398-002]

Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Amended Certificate

December 16, 2008.
    Take notice that on December 5, 2008, Gulf Crossing Pipeline
Company LLC (Gulf Crossing), 9 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800,
Houston, Texas 77046, filed in Docket No. CP07-398-002, an amendment to
its certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to section
7 (c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) which authorized the siting,
construction, and operation of facilities on April 30, 2008. In its
amendment, Gulf South proposes to increase the size of the turbine
compressor units and increase the horsepower at the Mira Compressor
Station, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The Commission
staff will determine if this amendment will have an effect on the
schedule for the environmental review of this project. If necessary, a
revised Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will be issued
within 90 days of this Notice. The instant filing may be also viewed on
the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to J. Kyle
Stephens, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Boardwalk Pipeline
Partners, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046 or by telephone at
713-479-8033 or telecopy to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: January 6, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-30392 Filed 12-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P