[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78929-78931]
[DOCID:fr24de08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1138; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-059-AD;
Amendment 39-15778; AD 2008-26-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aircraft Industries a.s. (Type
Certificate G60EU previously held by LETECK[Eacute] Z[Aacute]VODY a.s.
and LET Aeronautical Works) Model L 23 Super Blanik Sailplane

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted by the discovery
on L 23 SUPER-BLANIK sailplanes of cracks in zones where the front
and aft control levers attach the connecting rod designated as
``control bridge'' on the relevant Illustrated Parts Catalogues
(IPC). If left uncorrected cracks could propagate and lead to the
breakage of the connecting rod with subsequent loss of control of
the sailplane.

    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 28, 2009.
    On January 28, 2009, the Director of the Federal Register approves
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 29 (73 FR
64282). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted by the discovery
on L 23 SUPER-BLANIK sailplanes of cracks in zones where the front
and aft control levers attach the connecting rod designated as
``control bridge'' on the relevant Illustrated Parts Catalogues
(IPC). If left uncorrected cracks could propagate and lead to the
breakage of the connecting rod with subsequent loss of control of
the sailplane.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires an inspection
for cracks of the control bridge and its replacement, as necessary.
In addition, this AD requires an update of the aircraft Maintenance
Manual (MM) to incorporate repetitive inspections of the control
bridge.

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

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

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 required 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 105 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $16,800, or $160 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 7 work-hours and require parts costing $2,000, for a cost of
$2,560 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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 AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-26-12 Aircraft Industries a.s. (Type Certificate G60EU
previously held by LETECK[Eacute] Z[Aacute]VODY a.s. and LET
Aeronautical Works): Amendment 39-15778; Docket No. FAA-2008-1138;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-059-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January
28, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model L 23 Super Blanik sailplanes, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted by the discovery
on L 23 SUPER-BLANIK sailplanes of cracks in zones where the front
and aft control levers attach the connecting rod designated as
``control bridge'' on the relevant Illustrated Parts Catalogues
(IPC). If left uncorrected cracks could propagate and lead to the
breakage of the connecting rod with subsequent loss of control of
the sailplane.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires an inspection
for cracks of the control bridge and its replacement, as necessary.
In addition, this AD requires an update of the aircraft Maintenance
Manual (MM) to incorporate repetitive inspections of the control
bridge.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 3 months after January 28, 2009 (the
effective date of this AD) and repetitively thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 12 months, visually inspect the control bridge in
areas of juncture with the two control sticks for cracks. Do the
inspection following paragraph A of LET Aircraft Industries, a.s.
Mandatory Bulletin MB No. L23/050a, Revision No. 2, dated September
12, 2007, except use a 10X magnifier and do a dye penetrant
inspection following the procedures in chapter 5, section 5, of FAA
Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B CHG 1, dated September 27, 2001.
    (2) If cracks are found in the control bridge bedding during any
inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further
flight, replace the defective control bridge bedding, Dwg. No. A740
371N, in the control bridge assembly, Dwg. No. A740 370N, following
LET Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No. L23/050a,
Revision No. 2, dated September 12, 2007; and Appendix No. 1,
``Replacement of Bearings 608 CSN 024630 at Control Bridge Dwg. No.
A740 370N in a Bedding Dwg. No. A740 371N,'' to LET Aircraft
Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No. L23/050a, Revision No. 2,
dated September 12, 2007.
    (3) Doing the replacement required in paragraph (f)(2) of this
AD terminates the 12-month repetitive inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. After the replacement required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, perform subsequent inspections on the
new control bridge assembly according to LET Aircraft Industries,
a.s. Documentation Bulletin No.: L23/020 d, dated August 6, 2007.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    (1) The service information requires a visual inspection with a
6X magnifier. We are requiring a dye penetrant inspection and a 10X
magnifier to detect cracks that could go undetected using only a 6X
magnifier.
    (2) The MCAI requires updating the maintenance manuals to add
repetitive inspections of the control bridge. Since the maintenance
manual is only one way of establishing a maintenance program, the
only way we can mandate these repetitive inspections is through an
AD action. We have made these repetitive inspections part of this
AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, 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: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any sailplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (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

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2007-0261, dated October 2, 2007; LET Aircraft Industries, a.s.
Mandatory Bulletin MB No. L23/050a, Revision No. 2, dated September
12, 2007; Appendix No. 1, ``Replacement of Bearings 608 CSN 024630
at Control Bridge Dwg. No. A740 370N in a Bedding Dwg. No. A740
371N,'' to LET Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No.
L23/050a, Revision No. 2, dated September 12, 2007; LET Aircraft
Industries, a.s. Documentation Bulletin No.: L23/020 d, dated August
6, 2007; and FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B CHG 1, dated
September 27, 2001, for related information. FAA Advisory Circular
AC 43.13-1B CHG 1, dated September 27, 2001, can be found on the
Internet at http://rgl.faa.gov/.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use LET Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory
Bulletin MB No. L23/050a, Revision No. 2, dated September 12, 2007;
Appendix No. 1, ``Replacement of Bearings 608 CSN 024630 at Control
Bridge Dwg. No. A740 370N in a Bedding Dwg. No. A740 371N,'' to LET
Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No. L23/050a,
Revision No. 2, dated September 12, 2007; and LET Aircraft
Industries, a.s. Documentation Bulletin No.: L23/020 d, dated August
6, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Aircraft Industries, a.s. Na Z[aacute]honech 1177, 686 04 Kunovice,
Czech Republic; phone: +420-572816002; fax: +420-572816006;
Internet: http://www.let.cz/.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 16, 2008.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-30405 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10145-10149]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03215]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91110; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2021-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Schedule of Fees and Rebates

February 11, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on February 1, 2021, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates
(``Fee Schedule'') to modify the requirements to qualify for the Adding
Tier 1 and 2 and Removing Tier 1. The Exchange proposes to implement
the rule change on February 1, 2021. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates
(``Fee Schedule'') to modify the requirements to qualify for the Adding
Tier 1 and 2 and Removing Tier 1.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing and liquidity-removing orders by offering further incentives
for ETP Holders to send additional displayed and non-displayed
liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on February 1,
2021.
Current Market and Competitive Environment
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 16
exchanges,\6\ 31 alternative trading systems,\7\ and numerous broker-
dealer

internalizers and wholesalers. Based on publicly-available information,
no single exchange has more than 16% of the market.\8\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of equity
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange's share of executed volume
of equity trades in Tapes A, B and C securities is less than 2%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule) (``Transaction Fee Pilot'').
    \6\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. Although 54
alternative trading systems were registered with the Commission as
of July 29, 2019, only 31 are currently trading. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain products, in
response to fee changes. While it is not possible to know a firm's
reason for moving order flow, the Exchange believes that one such
reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or
non-exchange trading venues to which a firm routes order flow. These
fees vary month to month, and not all are publicly available. With
respect to non-marketable order flow that would provide liquidity on an
exchange, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently
operating registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly,
competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and
market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem
pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    The Exchange utilizes a ``taker-maker'' or inverted fee model to
attract orders that provide liquidity at the most competitive prices.
Under the taker-maker model, offering rebates for taking (or removing)
liquidity increases the likelihood that market participants will send
orders to the Exchange to trade with liquidity providers' orders. This
increased taker order flow provides an incentive for market
participants to send orders that provide liquidity. The Exchange
generally charges fees for order flow that provides liquidity. These
fees are reasonable due to the additional marketable interest (in part
attracted by the Exchange's rebate to remove liquidity) with which
those order flow providers can trade.
Proposed Rule Change
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes
the following changes to its Fee Schedule designed to provide order
flow providers with additional incentives to route liquidity-providing
order flow to the Exchange. As described above, ETP Holders with
liquidity-providing order flow have a choice of where to send that
order flow.
Proposed Changes to Adding Tier 1 and Adding Tier 2
    Under current Adding Tier 1, ETP Holders that add liquidity to the
Exchange in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more and that
have at least 0.25% or more Adding ADV as a percentage of US CADV are
charged a fee of $0.0020 per share for adding displayed orders in Tape
A, B and C securities and $0.0024 per share for adding non-displayed
orders in Tape A, B and C securities.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the requirements to qualify for
Adding Tier 1 by adopting an alternative qualification basis for the
Adding Tier 1 fee. As proposed, ETP Holders would qualify for the
current fees by having at least 0.25% or more Adding ADV as a
percentage of US CADV or at least 30 million shares of Adding ADV. The
Exchange does not propose any changes to the Adding Rate for Adding
Tier 1, and the rate for orders that add liquidity under the Adding
Tier 1 would remain unchanged.
    Similarly, under current Adding Tier 2, ETP Holders that add
liquidity to the Exchange in securities with a per share price of $1.00
or more and that have at least 0.13% or more Adding ADV as a percentage
of US CADV are charged a fee of $0.0022 per share for adding displayed
orders in Tape A, B and C securities.
    The Exchange proposes to revise Adding Tier 2 by adopting an
alternative qualification basis for the tier. As proposed, ETP Holders
would qualify for the current rebate by having at least 0.13% or more
Adding ADV as a percentage of US CADV or at least 16 million shares or
more Adding ADV. The Exchange does not propose any changes to the
Adding Rate for Adding Tier 2, and the rate for such orders that add
liquidity under the Adding Tier 2 would remain unchanged.
    The Exchange believes that introducing alternative criteria for ETP
Holders to qualify for Adding Tier 1 and Adding Tier 2 will allow
greater numbers of ETP Holders to potentially qualify for the tier, and
will incentivize more ETP Holders to route their liquidity-providing
order flow to the Exchange in order to qualify for the tier. This in
turn would support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and
provide additional price improvement opportunities for incoming orders.
The Exchange believes that by correlating the amount of the fee to the
level of orders sent by an ETP Holder that add liquidity, the
Exchange's fee structure would incentivize ETP Holders to submit more
orders that add liquidity to the Exchange, thereby increasing the
potential for price improvement to incoming marketable orders submitted
to the Exchange.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment,
particularly as relates to attracting non-marketable orders, which add
liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange does not know how much order
flow ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange
venues. Based on the profile of liquidity-adding firms generally, the
Exchange believes that additional ETP Holders could qualify for the
tiered rate under the new qualification criteria if they choose to
direct order flow to, and increase quoting on, the Exchange. However,
without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other exchanges and
off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any additional ETP Holders
directing orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the Adding
Tier 1 and Adding Tier 2 rates.
    The Exchange proposes the non-substantive change of deleting ``or
more'' following the amount of Adding ADV as a percentage of US CADV
required to qualify for the Adding Tier 1, Adding Tier 2, Adding Tier
4, Adding Tier 4 and Non-Displayed Adding Tier 1. The designation ``at
least'' before the relevant amount of Adding ADV in each tier renders
the phrase ``or more'' after the amount redundant.
Proposed Changes to Removing Tier 1
    Under current Removing Tier 1, the Exchange provides a rebate of
$0.0030 per share to ETP Holders that remove liquidity from the
Exchange in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more and that
have a combined Adding ADV and Removing ADV of at least 0.18% as a
percentage of US CADV and at least 250,000 of Adding ADV.
    The Exchange proposes to revise Removing Tier 1 by adopting an
alternative qualification basis for the tier. As proposed, ETP Holders
would qualify for the current rebate by having at least 250,000 Adding
ADV and a combined Adding ADV and Removing ADV of at least (1) 0.18% as
a percentage of US CADV, or (2) 21.5 million shares ADV. The Exchange
does not propose any changes to the Removing Rate for Orders that
removed liquidity that qualify for Removing Tier 1, and the rate for
such orders under

Removing Tier 1 would remain unchanged.
    The Exchange believes that providing an alternative way for ETP
Holders to qualify for Removing Tier 1 of at least 21.5 million shares
ADV will allow greater numbers of ETP Holders to qualify for the tier,
and will incentivize more ETP Holders to route liquidity-removing order
flow to the Exchange in order to qualify for the tier. This is turn
would support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and
provide additional price improvement opportunities for incoming orders.
As described above, ETP Holders with liquidity-removing order flow have
a choice of where to send that order flow. The Exchange believes that
as a result of the proposed change to Removing Tier 1, more ETP Holders
will choose to route their liquidity-removing order flow to the
Exchange in order to qualify for the credit for removing liquidity
associated with Removing Tier 1 given that the requirements to qualify
have been reduced.
    As noted, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment. The
Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders choose to route
to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Based on the profile of
liquidity-adding firms generally, the Exchange believes that additional
ETP Holders could qualify for the tiered rate under the new
qualification criteria if they choose to direct order flow to, and
increase quoting on, the Exchange. Without having a view of ETP
Holders' activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
result in any additional ETP Holders directing orders to the Exchange
in order to qualify for the Removing Tier 1 rate.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP
Holders would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \12\ While Regulation
NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a ``fragmented''
market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across
multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for
order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that ``such
competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that
stock.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS'').
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the current competitive environment, the Exchange believes
that the proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional
order flow to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange believes that
the proposed revisions to Adding Tiers 1 and 2 and Removing Tier 1 are
reasonable because they would promote execution opportunities for ETP
Holders routing order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal as a whole represents a
reasonable effort to promote price improvement and enhanced order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit
from the greater amounts of liquidity on the Exchange, which would
represent a wider range of execution opportunities.
    The Exchange further believes that removing a redundant phrase from
the Adding Tier 1, Adding Tier 2, Adding Tier 4, Adding Tier 4 and Non-
Displayed Adding Tier 1 would also add clarity and transparency to the
Schedule of Fees and Rebates.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change equitably allocates
its fees among its market participants. The proposed change would
continue to encourage ETP Holders to both submit additional liquidity
to the Exchange and execute orders on the Exchange, thereby
contributing to robust levels of liquidity, to the benefit of all
market participants.
    The Exchange believes that modifying Adding Tiers 1 and 2 and
Removing Tier 1 would encourage the submission and removal of
additional liquidity from the Exchange, thus enhancing order execution
opportunities for ETP Holders from the substantial amounts of liquidity
present on the Exchange. All ETP Holders would benefit from the greater
amounts of liquidity that would be present on the Exchange, which would
provide greater execution opportunities.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would also improve
market quality for all market participants seeking to remove liquidity
on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the
Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality. The proposal neither
targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category
of market participant.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal constitutes
an equitable allocation of fees because all similarly situated ETP
Holders and other market participants would be eligible for the same
general and tiered rates and would be eligible for the same fees and
credits. Moreover, the proposed change is equitable because the revised
fees would apply equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    Moreover, the proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate
impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange
believes that the proposal does not permit unfair discrimination
because the proposal would be applied to all similarly situated ETP
Holders and all ETP Holders would be subject to the same modified
Adding Tiers 1 and 2 and Removing Tier 1. Accordingly, no ETP Holder
already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by

the proposed allocation of fees and credits.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would not
permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because the tiered rates
are available equally to all ETP Holders. As described above, in
today's competitive marketplace, order flow providers have a choice of
where to direct liquidity-providing order flow, and the Exchange
believes there are additional ETP Holders that could qualify if they
chose to direct their order flow to the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\14\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity and order flow to a public exchange, thereby enhancing order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \15\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. As described above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change would provide additional incentives
for market participants to route liquidity-providing and liquidity-
removing orders to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market
participants on the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities
and encourages ETP Holders to send orders, thereby contributing to
robust levels of liquidity. The proposed revised fees would be
available to all similarly-situated market participants, and thus, the
proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition
among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchanges and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates
to remain competitive with other exchanges and off-exchange venues.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee
change can impose any burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \16\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \17\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \18\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2021-02 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-NYSENAT-2021-02. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. 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-NYSENAT-2021-02 and should
be submitted on or before March 11, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03215 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13575-13576]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06610]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0206; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Monroe, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface in Monroe-Walton County Airport,
Monroe, GA, to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the
decommissioning of the Monroe non-directional radio beacon and
cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
at this airport. This action also would update the geographic
coordinates of this airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2019-0206; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-6, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace at Monroe-Walton County Airport,
Monroe, GA to support IFR operations in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2019-0206 and Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-6) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following

statement is made: ``Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0206; Airspace
Docket No. 19-ASO-6.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet or more above the surface at Monroe-Walton County
Airport, Monroe, GA, by increasing the airport radius to 6.9 miles
(from 6.3 miles), and eliminating the southwest extension of the
airport to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the
decommissioning of the Monroe NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach.
Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Monroe, GA [Amended]

Monroe-Walton County Airport, GA
    (Lat. 33[deg]46'57'' N, long. 83[deg]41'34'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of the Monroe-County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 28, 2019.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2019-06610 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 25347]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0030]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated February 14, 2013, the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and the Union
Pacific Railroad (UP) have jointly petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part
232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger
Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2013-0030.
    Specifically, BNSF and UP seek a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR
232.305(b)(2) for railroad cars tested with automatic single car test
devices (ASCTD). The current rule stipulates that if a car is on a shop
or repair track for any reason and has not had a single car air brake
test within the previous 12-month period, a single car air brake test
must be performed. In their petition, UP and BNSF state that when this
requirement became effective, the new ASCTDs were not in widespread
use. BNSF and UP further state that sufficient time has passed, and
enough industry experience has been gained, to establish the advance in
testing technology that the ASCTD has over the old manual device.
Comparisons of the manual versus the automated testers made by BNSF and
UP show an improvement of 11.5 percent in solving air brake-related
issues. BNSF and UP submitted additional data to support their waiver
petition, which has been placed in the subject docket.
    BNSF and UP request that relief be granted to railroad cars tested
within the previous 2 years, if shopped for any non-air brake-related
reason on a shop or repair track, as set forth in 49 CFR 232.305(b).
BNSF and UP propose a test waiver where all cars tested with the ASCTDs
will be tracked through the Association of American Railroads' billing
records for repeat air brake repairs within the 2-year period from the
last single car air brake test performed with an ASCTD. Additionally,
BNSF and UP will scan data from the wheel impact load and hot/cold
wheel detector reports to see if the test cars develop any detector
exceptions within the 2-year time period from the last single car air
brake test performed with an ASCTD. BNSF and UP suggest that every 6
months, FRA, BNSF, and UP should hold a conference to review the data.
BNSF and UP believe that data from this test waiver will demonstrate
the effectiveness of the ASCTDs.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received by June 14, 2013 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-10070 Filed 4-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 61747]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2803-000]

Discount Energy Group, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

September 22, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Discount Energy Group, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 12, 2010.
    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 Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25075 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71480-71482]
[DOCID:fr29no05-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice Of Filings 1

November 21, 2005.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings
    Docket Numbers: ER03-9-004; ER03-9-005; ER98-2157-005; ER98-2157-
006 EL05-64-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electric
Company.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc and Kansas Gas and Electric Co
submit

response to FERC's 10/17/05 Information Request.
    Filed Date: 11/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051117-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 6, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1036-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc submits an errata to its 9/13/05 filing.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1389-001.
    Applicants: San Juan Mesa Project, LLC.
    Description: San Juan Mesa Wind Project, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet No. 1 et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1 to be
effective 10/7/05 in compliance with FERC's 10/12/05.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1439-001.
    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.
    Description: Allgeheny Energy Supply Co, LLC submits its Full
Requirements Service Agreement with West Penn Power Co.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-969-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an errata to its 9/13/05 compliance filing of a Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-200-000.
    Applicants: Big Horn Wind Project LLC.
    Description: Big Horn Wind Project LLC submits its initial rate
schedule, a request for the granting of authorizations and blanket
authority and for waiver of certain requirements.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051115-0137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-201-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern Califoria Edison Co informs FERC of the
purchase price of the Mountainview Power Co LLC-owned generation
facility.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005
    Accession Number: 20051115-0135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-205-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Alcoa Power Generating, Inc submits revisions to the
open access transmission tariff of its Long Sault Division.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-206-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Co's notice of cancellation of
their FERC Electric Rate Schedule No.170, to be effective 12/31/05.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-207-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services, Inc, on behalf of Public Service
Company of Colorado submits an Amended & Restated Agreement for
Interconnection Service with Fountain Valley Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-208-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc on behalf of Public Service
Co of Colorado submits an Amended & Restated Agreement for
Interconnection Service with Black Hills Colorado, LLC.in reference to
Original Agreement No. 164-PSCo.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-209-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Service, Inc submits on behalf of Public
Service Company of Colorado its Amended & Restated Agreement for
Interconnection Service with Black Hills Colorado, LLC. in reference to
Original Agreement No. 163-PSCo.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-210-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Service Inc on behalf of Public Service Co
of Colorado submits an amended & restated agreement for interconnection
service with BIV Generation Co, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-211-000.
    Applicants: Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative Inc.
    Description: Rayburn Country Electric Coop, Inc notifies FERC that
they are no longer a public utility as defined by the Federal Power
Act, due to amendments to section 201(f) of the FPA.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 5, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-212-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Co submits proposed
amendments to the Power Service Agreement with the City of Crystal
Falls, Michigan.
    Filed Date: 11/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 6, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-213-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Alabama
Power Co, submits notice of cancellation of Original Sheet Nos.1
through 168 of the Amended & Restated Agreement for partial
requirements service & complementary service with Alabama Municipal
Authority.
    Filed Date: 11/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051116-0183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 6, 2005.

    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 and the Applicant.
    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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6630 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P