[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35877]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 3

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3499-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Revised Rate Schedule No. 139 of Florida Power Corp. in
Docket ER11-3499 to be effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110610-5189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 24, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3614-001.
    Applicants: Glacial Energy Holdings.
    Description: Glacial Energy Holdings submits tariff filing per 35:
Substitute Market-based Tariff of Glacial Energy Holdings to be
effective 5/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110610-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3782-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-06-10 CAISO Revised
IBAAO with WALC DSR to be effective 6/15/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110610-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 01, 201.1

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3783-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Kentucky Utilities Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 06--10--11 Nicholasville Amendment to be effective 6/
10/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110610-5155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 01, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    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 proceedings 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 10, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15158 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 182 (Monday, September 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57007-57008]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23521]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3166]

Establishment of the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the establishment of the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (the
Committee). The Committee will provide advice to the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) or designee, on complex issues
relating to medical devices, regulation of devices, and their use by
patients. The Committee may consider topics such as Agency guidance and
policies, clinical trial or registry design, patient preference study
design, benefit-risk determinations, device labeling, unmet clinical
needs, available alternatives, patient reported outcomes and device-
related quality of life or health status issues, and other patient-
related topics. The Agency is also announcing the establishment of a
public docket for comments on the potential topics.

DATES: Comments received by November 20, 2015, will be provided to the
Agency.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. Comments are to be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Letise Williams, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5441,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Committee will provide advice to the Commissioner or designee,
on complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of
devices, and their use by patients. The Committee may consider topics
such as: Agency guidance and policies, clinical trial or registry
design, patient preference study design, benefit-risk determinations,
device labeling, unmet clinical needs, available alternatives, patient
reported outcomes and device-related quality of life or health status
issues, and other patient-related topics. The Committee will provide
relevant skills and perspectives, in order to improve communication of
benefits, risks, clinical outcomes, and increase integration of patient
perspectives into the regulatory process for medical devices. It will
perform its duties by discussing and providing advice and
recommendation in ways such as: Identifying new approaches, promoting
innovation, recognizing unforeseen risks or barriers, and identifying
unintended consequences that could result from FDA policy.

A. Composition of the Committee

    The Committee will consist of a core of nine voting members,
including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the
Commissioner or designee from experts who are knowledgeable in areas
such as clinical research, primary care patient experience, and health
care needs of patient groups in the United States. Selected Committee
members may also be experienced in the work of patient and health
professional organizations; methodologies for eliciting patient
preferences; and strategies for communicating benefits, risks and
clinical outcomes to patients and research subjects. Members will be
invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all
non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government
Employees. The voting members may include one consumer representative
who is a technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or
designee, identified with consumer interests, and is recommended by
either a consortium of consumer oriented organizations or other
interested persons.
    The Commissioner or designee will also have the authority to select
from a group of individuals nominated by industry to serve temporarily
as non-voting members who are identified with industry interests. The
number of temporary non-voting members selected for a particular
meeting will depend on the meeting topic.

B. Topics

    FDA is also soliciting public feedback on potential topics for this
Committee to discuss and advise the Agency. The following topics may
include, but are not limited to:
     Where can patients provide input across the medical device
total product lifecycle? What should be the focus of that input (e.g.,
input on unmet medical needs; input on endpoints of interest for
particular diseases/conditions; input on feasibility of clinical study
plans and protocols to reduce barriers to patient participation and
retention; input on draft patient labeling; postmarket data reported
directly from patients; input on potential risk communication related
to products already on the market)? How should the process of
soliciting patient input for various purposes work?
     How should FDA directly engage patients for input related
to medical device premarket considerations (e.g., in considering public
health impact criterion for eligibility for Expedited Access Program)?
     How should FDA engage patients for input related to
medical device performance once products are available on the market?
     Under what conditions should health care professional or
patient labeling include information about patient preference studies
or patient reported outcomes (PROs)?
     How should sponsors present patient preference information
or PROs in the health care professional and patient labeling?
     How should labeling indicate that only a portion of
patients in a patient preference study were willing to accept certain
risks in order to achieve probable benefits?
     How should sponsors and the FDA ensure that patients
receive and understand patient preference information?
     How can patient preferences be obtained in an unbiased
manner if the device study has already enrolled and/or been published?
     How do patients view clinical study informed consent
forms?
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing
separate documents regarding:
    1. Request for Nominations for Voting Members for the Patient
Engagement Advisory Committee
    2. Request for Nominations of Individuals and Consumer
Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee
    3. Request for Nominations of Individuals and Industry
Organizations for the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee
    FDA intends to publish a final rule in the Federal Register, adding
the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee to 21 CFR part 14.100.

II. Comments

    FDA is opening a docket for 60 days to provide an opportunity for
public comment on the potential topics. Interested persons may submit
either electronic comments regarding the potential topics to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Divisions of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 15, 2015.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-23521 Filed 9-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59609-59610]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-523-000]

WBI Energy Transmission Company, Inc.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on September 17, 2012, WBI Energy Transmission,
Inc. (WBI Energy), 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota
58506-5601, filed in Docket No. CP12-523-000, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA). WBI Energy seeks authorization to install and
operate mainline natural gas facilities, and to increase the Maximum
Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of a segment of mainline and
associated laterals in McKenzie, Mountrail, and Williams Counties,
North Dakota. WBI Energy proposes to perform these activities under its
blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82-487-000, et al. [30 FERC
] 61,143 (1985)], all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    The filing may be 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, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Keith A. Tiggelaar, Director of Regulatory Affairs, WBI Energy
Transmission, Inc., 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota,
58506-5601, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed
therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized
effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is
filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for

authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: September 25, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23939 Filed 9-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6284-6288]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02864]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82654; File No. SR-BOX-2018-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Section VI. (Technology Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule

February 7, 2018.
    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 January 31, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend Section VI.
(Technology Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule. While changes to the fee
schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the
changes will become operative on February 1, 2018. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The

Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section VI (Technology Fees) in the
Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section
VI.B. (High Speed Vendor Feed (``HSVF'')) in the BOX Fee Schedule to
revise the fee charged per month for all market participants for
receiving the HSVF. The Exchange's proprietary HSVF is currently
available to all market participants at a fee of $750.00 per month;
however, the Exchange now proposes to increase the fee to $1,500.00 per
month for all market participants who receive the HSVF. This fee will
be payable by any market participant that receives the HSVF through a
direct connection to BOX and will be assessed once per market
participant.
    In February 2013, the Exchange made its proprietary direct market
data product, the HSVF, available to all market participants at no
cost.\5\ In August 2016, the Exchange established a fee of $750 per
month for the HSVF for all market participants.\6\ The Exchange now
proposes to raise the monthly fee for the HSVF. The BOX HSVF is a
proprietary product that provides: (i) Trades and trade cancelation
information; (ii) best-ranked price level to buy and the best-ranked
price level to sell; (iii) instrument summaries (including information
such as high, low, and last trade price and traded volume); (iv) the
five best limit prices for each option instrument; (v) request for
Quote messages; \7\ (vi) PIP Order, Improvement Order and Block Trade
Order (Facilitation and Solicitation) information; \8\ (vii) orders
exposed at NBBO; \9\ (viii) instrument dictionary (e.g., strike price,
expiration date, underlying symbol, price threshold, and minimum
trading increment for instruments traded on BOX); (ix) options class
and instrument status change notices (e.g., whether an instrument or
class is in pre-opening, continuous trading, closed, halted, or
prohibited from trading); and (x) options class opening time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68833 (February 5,
2013), 78 FR 9758 (February 11, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-04).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78565 (August 18
[sic], 2016), 81 FR 55251 (August 3 [sic], 2016) (SR-BOX-2016-40).
    \7\ See Exchange Rules 100(a)(57), 7070(h) and 8050.
    \8\ As set forth in Exchange Rules 7150 and 7270, respectively.
    \9\ As set forth in Exchange Rules 7130(b)(3) and 8040(d)(6),
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that data connection fees are charged by other
options markets such as Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX''), Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe''), Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX''), The Nasdaq Options
Market (``NOM''), and Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``PHLX'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See the BZX Fee Schedule, available at: http://
markets.;cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/, the EDGX
Fee Schedule, available at: http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/, the Cboe Fee Schedule, available at
http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf and the
Cboe Data Services Fee Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.org/publish/mdxfees/cboe-cds-fees-schedule-for-cboe-datafeeds.pdf, the
C2 Fee Schedule, available at: http://www.cboe.com/publish/C2FeeSchedule/C2FeeSchedule.pdf and the C2 Data Services Fee
Schedule, available at: https://www.cboe.org/publish/mdxfees/c2-cds-fees-schedule.pdf, the BX Fee Schedule, available at: http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQBXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp_1_2_15&manual=%2FNASDAQOMXBX%2Fmain%2Fbx-eq-rules%2F; the NOM Fee Schedule, available at: http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp_1_1_15_1_2&manual=%2Fnasdaq%2Fmain%2Fnasdaq-optionsrules%2F, the PHLX Fee Schedule, available at:
http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQPHLXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp_1_4_2&manual=%2Fnasdaqomxphlx%2Fphlx%2Fphlx-rulesbrd%2F, and the NASDAQ U.S. Derivatives Data Price
List, available at: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPPriceListOptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among BOX Participants and other persons using the Exchange's
facilities and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') revenues
and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\14\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\15\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data. . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \15\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \16\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers.' . . .'' \17\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX believes that the allocation of the proposed fee is fair and
equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not
unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act. As described in greater detail below, if BOX has calculated
improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair,
inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can discontinue the
use of their data because the proposed product is entirely optional to
all parties. Firms are not required to purchase data and BOX is not
required to make data available or to offer specific pricing
alternatives for potential purchases. BOX can discontinue offering a
pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue
their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including
due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees

charged. BOX continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed
at increasing fairness and equitable allocation of fees among
subscribers.
    The Exchange's proprietary HSVF is currently available to all
market participants at a fee of $750.00 per month; however, the
Exchange now proposes to increase the fee to $1,500.00 per month for
all market participants who receive the HSVF. The Exchange believes
that raising the HSVF fee to $1,500 per month per connection is
reasonable and appropriate as it is within the connectivity fee range
that is charged by other options exchanges.\18\ The Exchange believes
comparing the HSVF to the data connectivity fees at other exchanges is
appropriate as the Exchange currently assess [sic] the HSVF fee by
connection to and not consumption of the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra, note 10. Cboe's and C2's data distributor CDS
charges a $500 port fee per month; BZX and EDGX charge a
connectivity fee between $250 and $14,500 a month for connectivity
depending upon the data feed; BX charges a port fee between $500 and
$650 per month depending upon the port; NOM charges a port fee
between $650 and $750 a month depending upon the port, and PHLX
charges a connectivity fee between $65 and $6,000 a month depending
upon the data feed. The Exchange notes that the above mentioned
exchanges charge these fees per port, while the Exchange proposes to
assess the fee once per market participant. Furthermore, the
Exchange notes that Cboe, C2, BZX, EDGX, NASDAQ BX, NOM, and PHLX
charge the above mentioned connectivity fees in addition to data
fees, which range from $1 to $14,500 depending upon the data feed
and user type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that its fees are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants are charged
the same fee for access to the HSVF. Further, the Exchange notes that
all market participants who wish to receive the feed may, as the feed
is available to anyone willing to pay the proposed $1,500 monthly fee.

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. The proposed
change to the Fee Schedule will simply allow the Exchange to charge all
market participants equally for the costs incurred by connecting to the
BOX Network. The HSVF is similar to proprietary data products currently
offered by other exchanges, and these other exchanges charge comparable
monthly fees.\19\ While connection to the HSVF is required to receive
the broadcasts for and participate in the Exchange's auction
mechanisms,\20\ the Exchange does not believes [sic] the proposed
monthly fee will impede competition within these auctions. As discussed
above, the Exchange believes that fees for connectivity are constrained
by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-
exchange markets. Further, excessive fees for connectivity would serve
to impair [sic] ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening
competition. As such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ BOX's auction mechanisms include the Price Improvement
Period (``PIP''), Complex Order Price Improvement Period
(``COPIP''), Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon
competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market
data, the NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that
case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that
the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. BOX
believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the
competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. Data products
are valuable to many end subscribers only insofar as they provide
information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or their
customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
Participant's view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer
(``BD'') will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the
expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net
transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to
buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The
choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the
products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the
product exceeds its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular
exchange, the value of the product to that BD decreases, for two
reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because
executions of the BD's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and
perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that BD
because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is
directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is
directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or
data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition at
24. However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow implies
a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow,
since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the
lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow from one
platform to another in response to order execution price differentials
would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce
its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly,
if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect
the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected BDs
will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing
orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive
data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders,

and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return
that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint
products and the total costs of the joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. Some exchanges pays rebates to attract orders, charges
relatively low prices for market information and charges relatively
high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose
a strategy of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting
relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting
relatively high prices for market information. Still others may provide
most data free of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to
recover their costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by
providing opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to
charge lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint
offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price
for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in
lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm
will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse
to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price
of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the
cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will
fall.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition
by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple
markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive
markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide
pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including BOX, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs'
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of
proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential
sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and
that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without
the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product, a
SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the data
available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than the
actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the
marketplace.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have
previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation
NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary
products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple
market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and
disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters. In Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over
40 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See http://www.cinnober.com/boat-trade-reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees
charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair
revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition I at 539. The existence of
fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in
response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the
value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume
data from the disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market
data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business
with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower
their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening
the need for the more expensive data.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\23\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2018-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-04. 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 rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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 SR-BOX-2018-04, and should be submitted on
or before March 6, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02864 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32256]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-2232-807]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Request for a temporary amendment of the
reservoir elevation requirement at the Great Falls/Dearborn
development.
    b. Project No.: 2232-807.
    c. Date Filed: May 25, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Catawba-Wateree River in
Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, Catawba, Alexander, Iredell, Mecklenburg,
Lincoln, and Gaston counties, North Carolina, and York, Lancaster,
Chester, Fairfield, and Kershaw counties South Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey G. Lineberger, Director of Water
Strategy and Hydro Licensing, Duke Energy, Mail Code EC-12Y, 526 South
Church Street, Charlotte, NC 28202,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Steven Sachs,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2232-807.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant requests a temporary
amendment of its reservoir elevation requirement at the Great Falls/
Dearborn development from late-July 2021 through August 2022. The
applicant proposes to generally maintain the reservoir surface
elevation 12 to 15 feet below the full pool elevation during this
period, exceeding the normally permissible maximum drawdown of 5 feet
below full pool. The applicant states the drawdown is necessary to
construct a diversion dam and headworks at the development.
    l. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit
comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to
intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', or ``PROTEST'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number(s) of the application
to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and
telephone number of the person intervening or protesting; and (4)
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through
385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set
forth their evidentiary basis. A copy of all other filings in reference
to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: June 11, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12785 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69606-69609]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1112; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-051-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark
0070 and 0100 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    The flight crew of a F28 Mark 0070 (Fokker 70) aeroplane
received a MLG [main landing gear] unsafe message after landing gear
down selection during approach. * * *

    Inspection just after landing revealed a lot of ice near the LH
(left-hand) MLG downlock actuator. * * *
    Based on the quantity and location of the ice, it is considered
highly likely that the ice had formed between the upper end of the
downlock actuator and the upper side brace, and was accumulated
during taxi on slush- and snow-contaminated taxiways and runway at
the departure airport.
    Ice in this location prevents the actuator from turning freely
relative to the upper side brace during landing gear down selection,
likely resulting in failure of the piston rod. This condition, if
not corrected, could lead to further cases of MLG extension
problems, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane
during landing roll-out.
* * * * *

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 30,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Fokker service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231,
2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350;
fax +31 (0)252-627-211; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.
    For Goodrich service information indentified in this proposed AD,
contact Goodrich Corporation, Landing Gear, 1400 South Service Road,
West Oakville L6L 5Y7, Ontario, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. 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; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; 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-2010-1112;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-051-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0268, dated December 17, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    The flight crew of a F28 Mark 0070 (Fokker 70) aeroplane
received a MLG [main landing gear] unsafe message after landing gear
down selection during approach. After cycling the landing gear, only
a LH [left-hand] MLG unsafe indication remained. A go-around was
initiated and alternate landing gear down selection was performed
twice, but the LH MLG did not lock down. During final approach,
without further flight crew action, all 3 green lights illuminated
and an uneventful landing was made.
    Inspection just after landing revealed a lot of ice near the LH
MLG downlock actuator. Further investigation revealed that the
piston rod of the downlock actuator had failed at the threaded end
close to the eye end, which is attached to the lower lock link, and
that the piston rod was broken in an overload by bending in the neck
close to the threaded end.
    Based on the quantity and location of the ice, it is considered
highly likely that the ice had formed between the upper end of the
downlock actuator and the upper side brace, and was accumulated
during taxi on slush- and snow-contaminated taxiways and runway at
the departure airport.
    Ice in this location prevents the actuator from turning freely
relative to the upper side brace during landing gear down selection,
likely resulting in failure of the piston rod. This condition, if
not corrected, could lead to further cases of MLG extension
problems, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane
during landing roll-out.
    To address this unsafe condition and prevent the accumulation of
water, slush and/or snow, Goodrich, the MLG manufacturer, has
introduced a new upper side brace, Part Number (P/N) 41350-3, which
has two additional drain holes. Goodrich Service Bulletin (SB)
41350-32-25 describes the modification of the P/N 41350-1 MLG upper
side brace, introducing the two additional drain holes and
consequent re-identification of the part to P/N 41350-3.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires modification
of both (LH and RH [right-hand]) P/N 41350-1 MLG upper side braces,
or replacement of the P/N 41350-1 upper side braces with modified P/
N 41350-3 upper side braces.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-32-157,
Revision 1, dated October 7, 2009. Goodrich Corporation has issued
Service Bulletin 41350-32-25, dated January 30, 2009. The actions
described in the service information are intended to correct the unsafe
condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 16 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $8,160, or $1,360 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2010-1112; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-051-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 30, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070
and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category; all serial
numbers, if equipped with Goodrich (formerly Menasco, Colt
Industries) main landing gears (MLGs) fitted with MLG upper side
braces having part number (P/N) 41350-1.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    The flight crew of a F28 Mark 0070 (Fokker 70) aeroplane
received a MLG [main landing gear] unsafe message after landing gear
down selection during approach. * * *
    Inspection just after landing revealed a lot of ice near the LH
MLG downlock actuator. * * *
    Based on the quantity and location of the ice, it is considered
highly likely that the ice had formed between the upper end of the
downlock actuator and the upper side brace, and was accumulated
during taxi on slush- and snow-contaminated taxiways and runway at
the departure airport.
    Ice in this location prevents the actuator from turning freely
relative to the upper side brace during landing gear down selection,
likely resulting in failure of the piston rod. This condition, if
not corrected, could lead to further cases of MLG extension
problems, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane
during landing roll-out.
* * * * *

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Within 8,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, modify or replace the side stay upper braces of the left-hand
and right-hand MLG, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin 41350-32-25, dated January
30, 2009; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-157, Revision 1,
dated October 7, 2009.
    (h) After modifying the side stay upper braces of the left-hand
and right-hand MLG as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do not
install any Goodrich (formerly Menasco, Colt Industries) side stay
upper brace assembly having P/N 41350-1 on any airplane.
    (i) After modifying the side stay upper braces of the left-hand
and right-hand MLG as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do not
install any Goodrich (formerly Menasco, Colt Industries) MLG on any
airplane, unless the replacement MLG has side stay upper braces
having P/N 41350-3.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2009-0268, dated December 17, 2009; Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-32-157, Revision 1, dated October 7, 2009; and
Goodrich Service Bulletin 41350-32-25, dated January 30, 2009; for
related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 3, 2010.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-28606 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P