[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41940-41943]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0453; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-205-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking at the
splice plate of a frame butt joint crossing area found during full-
scale fatigue testing. This proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections for cracking of both sides of the splice plate of that
frame butt joint crossing area, and corrective action if necessary.
This proposed AD would also provide for an optional modification, which
would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of the splice plate of the frame 47
butt joint crossing area, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 2,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0453;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-205-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 2013-0203, dated September 6, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    During the full scale fatigue test on A320-200, cracks were
reported at the splice plate of the frame (FR) 47 butt joint
crossing area, both sides.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus developed Mod 31012 and
introduced this on the production line to modify the current 2
fastener row butt joint into a 3 fastener row butt joint to prevent
further damage. For in-service aeroplanes, a corresponding
modification was developed and published as Airbus Service Bulletin
(SB) A320-53-1271.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI) of the splice plate of
the FR47 butt joint crossing area and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
    This [EASA] AD also introduces an optional modification, which
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive SDI required by
this [EASA] AD.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2014-0453.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A320-53-1260, dated December
19, 2012, and A320-53-1271, dated December 18, 2012. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the

manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated
actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement
to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified
unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD
requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed
in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative
method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or
Airbus's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 229 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 98 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,907,570, or
$8,330 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 100 work-hours and require parts costing $1,150, for a cost
of $9,650 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0453; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
205-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 2, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -
232, and -233 airplanes, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus
Modification 31012 has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking at the splice plate
of the frame (FR) 47 butt joint crossing area found during full-
scale fatigue testing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of the splice plate of the FR47 butt joint crossing
area, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or
(g)(3) of this AD: Do a special detailed inspection (rototest) for
cracking of both sides of the splice plate of the FR47 butt joint
crossing area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1260, dated December 19, 2012.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 14,800
flight cycles or 29,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (1) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated 44,000 or more total flight cycles or 88,000 or
more

total flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Do the
inspection within 1,500 flight cycles or 3,000 flight hours after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated 27,700 or more total flight cycles or 55,400 or
more total flight hours, but fewer than 44,000 total flight cycles
or 88,000 total flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Do
the inspection within 3,000 flight cycles or 6,000 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD, without exceeding 45,500 total
flight cycles or 91,000 total flight hours since first flight of the
airplane, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated fewer than 27,700 total flight cycles and less than
55,400 total flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Do the
inspection before the accumulation of 30,700 total flight cycles or
61,400 total flight hours since first flight of the airplane,
whichever occurs first.

(h) Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD:
Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Optional Modification

    Accomplishing the modification of the splice plate of the FR47
butt joint in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1271, dated December 18, 2012,
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it
to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch,
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0203, dated September 6,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0453.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 13, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-16950 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


U.S. Department 										55 Broadway
of Transportation										Cambridge, MA 02142

Research and
Innovative Technology
Administration

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

July 25, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:	Ex parte meeting with Bridgestone North America
FROM:		Gregory Powell, NHTSA
TO:		Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079
This memorandum documents a meeting held on May 4, 2011 between Bridgestone North America, EPA, and DOT regarding the proposed fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines for model years 2014-2018.  The attendees included:
Bridgestone North America:  Steve Charles, Tim Robinson, Tom Fominary
EPA: Angela Cullen, Byron Bunker
NHTSA/DOT:  Abigail Morgan, Coralie Cooper, Rebecca Yoon, Mary Versailles, Maurice Hicks, Gregory Powell

Representatives of Bridgestone North America, the Department of Transportation/NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency met at the request of the Environment Protection Agency to discuss Medium and Heavy Duty Tire rolling resistance for vocational vehicles.
Clarifications were sought regarding the capabilities, needs and levels of rolling resistance for vocational vehicles. The discussion covered the full-life cycle of tires, wear life, and wet traction capabilities of low rolling resistance tires.
As part of the lifecycle discussion, the group touched on the potential capabilities of re-treading tires versus disposal.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 34139]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 20, 2013, starting at 1:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by June 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 8th
floor, Conference Room 8 A/B/C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Butner, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the ARAC taking place on June 20, 2012, at the Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591. The Agenda includes:

1. Status Reports From Active Working Groups
    a. Airman Testing Standards and Training Working Group (ARAC)
    b. Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group (Transport Airplane
and Engine Subcommittee [TAE])
    c. Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (TAE)
    d. Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (TAE)
2. New Tasks
    a. AC 120-17A Maintenance Control by Reliability Methods
3. Status Report from the FAA
    a. Rulemaking Prioritization Working Group (RPWG)

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the space
available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than June 13, 2013.
Please provide the following information: full legal name, country of
citizenship, and name of your industry association, or applicable
affiliation. If you are attending as a public citizen please indicate
so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone
for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers outside the
Washington metropolitan area are responsible for paying long-distance
charges.
    The public must arrange by June 13, 2013 to present oral statements
at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to the
Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 2013.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2013-13335 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 77079-77083]
[DOCID:fr22de06-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54941; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-70)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Adopt Fees for the Trading of Equity
Securities on XLE

December 14, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 2, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``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 Phlx. On December
12, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Exchange has designated this amended proposal as one
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the
Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A),\4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Partial Amendment No. 1, which supplemented the proposal
as originally filed, the Exchange made several clarifying changes to
further explain the assessment of the proposed fees in connection
with its new equity trading system and made other technical changes
to the original filing. In addition, the Exchange included a revised
Exhibit 5A in Partial Amendment No. 1 to reflect technical and
clarifying changes made therein, which, for clarity and ease of
reference, replaces the Exhibit 5A contained in the original filing.
The Exchange did not propose any new fees in Partial Amendment No.
1.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to adopt the proposed fees described below for
the trading of equity securities on the Exchange in connection with its
new equity system (``XLE'').\6\ With XLE, the Exchange no longer
operates a physical trading floor for equity securities or the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange Automated Communication and Execution
(``PACE'') system.\7\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new
fee schedule to accommodate the trading of equity securities on XLE and
to amend Appendix A of the Exchange's fee schedule to adopt XLE-related
fees, delete obsolete fees, and modify other fees that will no longer
apply to equity trading.\8\ The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Phlx's Web site at http://www.phlx.com, at the Phlx's

Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ XLE is designed to provide the opportunity for entirely
automated executions to occur within a central matching system
accessible by Exchange members and member organizations and their
Sponsored Participants. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54538 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 59184 (October 6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-
2006-43).
    \7\ PACE was the Exchange's order routing, delivery, execution
and reporting system for its equity trading floor. The Commission
notes that XLE commenced limited operations on November 10, 2006.
    \8\ Although the fees proposed herein have been filed to become
immediately effective, the fees will not become operative until the
Exchange discontinues its physical equities trading floor and
commences operation of XLE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54538 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 59184 (October 6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-
2006-43) (order approving XLE rules). The Commission notes that XLE
commenced limited operations on November 10, 2006.
    \9\ The Stock Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia (``SCCP'')
filed a separate proposed rule change with the Commission to amend
its fee schedule to reflect fees associated with the trade
processing of equity securities through SCCP in connection with XLE.
See SR-SCCP-2006-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Phlx included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
Phlx 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt a fee schedule
for the trading of equity securities on the Exchange in connection with
XLE. The XLE fee schedule includes transaction fees (execution and
routing fees), covered sale fees, and system fees, as well as a market
data revenue sharing proposal. Changes to Appendix A of the Exchange's
fee schedule include permit fees, application fees, and a modified
examination fee, as well as the deletion of certain floor-based fees.
All the proposed fees will be assessed on Exchange members or member
organizations, which may include Sponsoring Member Organizations,\10\
(collectively referred to herein as ``member organizations'').
Sponsoring Member Organizations are responsible for the fees generated
by their Sponsored Participant's activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A Sponsoring Member Organization is a member organization
that has authorized access to XLE for a Sponsored Participant (a
person who has access to XLE which is authorized by a Sponsoring
Member Organization). See Phlx Rules 1(jj) and 1(kk).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transaction Fees. With respect to securities trading at or above
$1.00, the Exchange intends to charge member organizations an execution
fee, ranging from $0.0026 to $0.003 per share, depending on the number
of total shares executed monthly,\11\ for orders that remove liquidity
from XLE. Additionally, the Exchange intends to offer an execution
credit to member organizations, ranging from $0.002 to $0.0026 per
share, for orders that provide liquidity to XLE. Any available credits
would be applied to the member organization's monthly invoice. Excess
credits would be carried over into subsequent months or rebated to the
applicable member organization, as requested by the member
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The ``total monthly shares'' executed includes executions
resulting from removing and providing liquidity on XLE and crosses
executed on XLE, as well as shares executed when routed via XLE to
an away trading center and executed on that away trading center,
except for liquidity provided by incoming NMS Linkage Orders or ITS
Commitments. The total monthly shares will be calculated separately
per XLE Participant Organization, which, for purposes of this
proposal, refers to Sponsored Participants, Sponsoring Member
Organizations, and member organizations without Sponsored
Participants. Thus, Sponsored Participant activity will accrete
towards that Sponsored Participant's volume tier and not towards the
Sponsoring Member Organization's volume tier. Once a specific tier
has been reached in a month, all transactions for that month will be
subject to the fee that corresponds with that volume tier. See also
infra notes 15 and 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of adopting the volume tiers in connection with the
assessment of transaction fees is to encourage XLE Participant
Organizations to send and execute orders on XLE. The volume tiers are
based on the monthly shares executed per XLE Participant Organization;
for Tier 1 (less than or equal to 10 million shares executed), the
Exchange proposes to assess a fee of $0.003 per share executed to
remove liquidity and give a credit of $0.002 per share executed for
providing liquidity; for Tier 2 (greater than 10 million and less than
or equal to 50 million shares executed), the Exchange proposes to
assess a fee of $0.0028 per share executed to remove liquidity and give
a

credit of $0.0025 per share executed for providing liquidity; for Tier
3 (greater than 50 million and less than or equal to 200 million shares
executed), the Exchange proposes to assess a fee of $0.0027 per share
executed to remove liquidity and give a credit of $0.0026 per share
executed for providing liquidity; and for Tier 4 (greater than 200
million shares executed), the Exchange proposes to assess a fee of
$0.0026 per share executed to remove liquidity and give a credit of
$0.0026 per share executed for providing liquidity. For each of the
four volume tiers described above, the Exchange proposes to charge a
flat routing fee of $0.0036 per share executed when an order is routed
via XLE to an away trading center and executed on that away trading
center.
    In addition, in lieu of the above-referenced execution fees, the
Exchange proposes to adopt a separate execution fee for securities
executed on XLE at a per share price below $1.00 that remove liquidity.
For these securities, the Exchange would charge 0.1% (i.e., 10 basis
points) of the total dollar value of the transaction. The Exchange is
not proposing an execution fee credit for providing liquidity for
shares with a per share price below $1.00. Such executed volume for
securities trading below $1.00 will accrete towards the volume tier
breakpoint per XLE Participant Organization.
    Additional transaction fees are set forth on the proposed fee
schedule under the heading ``Miscellaneous Transaction Fees.''
Miscellaneous Transaction Fees would be assessed in lieu of the general
transaction fees described above. The Exchange proposes to adopt an
execution fee of $0.0023 per share per side for Immediate or Cancel
(``IOC'') Cross Orders and Mid-Point Cross Orders entered over
technology provided by Phlx.\12\ The Exchange is not proposing to adopt
any transaction fees (i.e., execution fee for removing liquidity or
execution credit for providing liquidity) for executions of IOC Cross
Orders \13\ and Mid-Point Cross Orders \14\ with respect to orders
entered over technology that is not provided by the Exchange. There
also would be no execution credit for any IOC Cross or Mid-Point Cross
transactions, whether entered over technology provided by Phlx or
not.\15\ In addition, in connection with IOC Cross Orders and Mid-Point
Cross Orders entered over technology provided by Phlx, there would be a
$50 maximum fee per trade side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Phlx intends to provide optional technology to XLE
Participants for the entry of two-sided orders into XLE.
    \13\ IOC Cross Orders are two-sided orders that match
immediately and automatically on XLE the identified buy-side with
the identified sell-side. Specifically, an IOC Cross Order is a two-
sided order that executes, in its entirety, at the specified price,
provided that XLE will cancel an IOC Cross Order at the time of
order entry under certain conditions. See Phlx Rules 185(c) and
185(c)(2).
    \14\ A Mid-Point Cross Order is a two-sided order that executes,
in its entirety, at the midpoint of the best Protected Bid and the
best Protected Offer in a security. These orders will match
immediately and automatically on XLE the identified buy-side with
the identified sell-side. See Phlx Rules 185(c) and 185(c)(1).
    \15\ Executed volume for IOC Cross and Mid-Point Cross Orders,
whether entered over technology provided by the Exchange or not,
will accrete towards the volume tier breakpoint per XLE Participant
Organization that is a party to the execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The execution fee for Odd Lot Orders \16\ would be $0.003 per share
executed, which applies to orders initially entered as Odd Lot Orders
and executed in XLE. There would be no execution credit for orders
initially entered as Odd Lot Orders and executed on XLE. Also, for
incoming NMS Linkage Orders or ITS Commitments routed to Phlx and
executed on XLE, the Exchange proposes to charge $0.003 per share for
removing liquidity.\17\ The Exchange is proposing to delete from its
Summary of Equity Charges the Outbound ITS fee and Net Inbound ITS
Credit, since the Exchange will no longer assess an Outbound ITS fee or
give a Net Inbound ITS Credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ An Odd Lot Order means an order for less than a round lot,
which is defined for purposes of XLE as a unit of trading that is
100 shares. See Phlx Rules 1(w) and 1(gg). Executed volume for
orders initially entered as Odd Lot Orders and executed on XLE will
accrete towards the volume tier breakpoint per XLE Participant
Organization.
    \17\ This fee will be assessed on the member organization
sponsoring the NMS Linkage Order or ITS Commitment or, if there is
no member organization sponsoring the NMS Linkage Order or ITS
Commitment, on the exchange or the Participant in the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Alternative Display Facility
(``ADF Participant'') sending the ITS Commitment or NMS Linkage
Order. The arrangement to charge other exchanges or ADF Participants
was part of separate proposed rule changes that were approved by the
Commission. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54548
(September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59159 (October 6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-
58) and 54555 (October 2, 2006), 71 FR 59577 (October 10, 2006) (SR-
Phlx-2006-60).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Covered Sale Fee. The Exchange will continue to charge a Covered
Sale Fee. Each member and member organization engaged in executing sale
transactions on the Exchange or executing transactions, which were
routed over the Intermarket Trading System or pursuant to the NMS
Linkage Plan, on another exchange or on a Participant in NASD's
Alternative Display Facility during any computational period shall pay
a Covered Sale Fee equal to (i) the Section 31 fee rate multiplied by
(ii) the member's aggregate dollar amount of covered sales.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Phlx Rule 607 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54555 (October 2, 2006), 71 FR 59577 (October 10, 2006) (SR-Phlx-
2006-60) (amending Phlx Rule 607). See also Partial Amendment No. 1,
supra note 3 (making conforming edits to the Covered Sale Fee rule
text to reflect the amended version of Phlx Rule 607). A Sponsoring
Member Organization is responsible for the Covered Sale Fees
generated in connection with its Sponsored Participant's sale
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    System Fees. The Exchange proposes to charge a monthly FIX \19\
Computer-to-Computer Interface (CTCI) Port Fee \20\ of $100.00 per
port. At this time, however, the Exchange does not intend to charge for
monthly Drop Copy Feeds,\21\ Monthly Phlx Systems,\22\ or Depth of Book
Data Feeds.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Financial Information eXchange (``FIX'') Protocol is a
messaging standard developed specifically for the real-time
electronic exchange of securities transactions.
    \20\ A port is defined as an Internet Protocol (``IP'') address
assigned by the Exchange for connectivity to XLE.
    \21\ The Drop Copy Feed provides real-time information
concerning trades executed by an XLE Participant Organization and
will be provided on a subscription basis.
    \22\ The Monthly Phlx Systems Fee refers to the use of optional
Phlx technology to enter in two-sided orders and related clearing
information.
    \23\ The Depth of Book feed displays every order, except the
undisplayed portion of a Reserve Order, within XLE at each price
level and will be provided, on a subscription basis, at no charge to
anyone who subscribes to receive this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Marketing Data Revenue Sharing. In addition, the Exchange is
proposing to adopt a quarterly market data revenue sharing program that
would provide for 50% of gross market data revenue to be shared with
the member organization responsible for providing the liquidity portion
of the trade. Sponsored Participant trades will be credited to the
applicable Sponsoring Member Organization. Any market data revenue
would be paid to the applicable member organization on a quarterly
basis.
    The market data revenue sharing will apply to all securities: Tape
A, Tape B, and Tape C. Although there is a difference in the manner in
which the underlying Tape A and Tape B, revenue versus Tape C revenue
is distributed to Phlx and the other national securities exchanges \24\
there is no difference in the manner in which member organizations will
share in Tape A and B revenue versus Tape C revenue because the
proposed rule language bases the credits on revenue attributable to the
executions of a member organization. Thus, a member organization
responsible for providing the liquidity

portion of the trade will receive 50% of the revenue attributable to
its executions reported to each of the three tapes.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Tape A and Tape B revenue is currently distributed to Phlx
and national securities exchanges based on the number of trades
reported, while Tape C revenue is distributed based on an average of
number of trades and number of shares reported.
    \25\ The Exchange states that the proposed market data revenue
sharing program is similar to programs implemented by other self-
regulatory organizations. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 53860 (May 24, 2006), 71 FR 31250 (June 1, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-
07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deleting Obsolete Fees. In connection with adopting the XLE fee
schedule for the trading of equity securities on the Exchange, the
Exchange proposes to delete the obsolete fees currently listed on the
Summary of Equity Charges,\26\ which includes deleting references to
license fees assessed in connection with the trading of certain
products. Although the Exchange may currently, or in the future, be a
party to a license fee agreement with a licensor in connection with the
trading of certain products, the Exchange does not propose to assess
license fees in connection with XLE at this time. The Exchange would
submit a separate proposed rule change if it decides to assess license
fees in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Covered Sale Fee, however, will continue to be assessed
in connection with XLE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to delete references to SCCP customer
and specialist fees on the Exchange's Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking
StockSM Fee Schedule \27\ to reflect changes that were
proposed in a separate SCCP fee filing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Nasdaq-100[supreg], Nasdaq-100 Index[supreg],
Nasdaq[supreg], The Nasdaq Stock Market[supreg], Nasdaq-100
Shares,SM Nasdaq-100 Trust,SM Nasdaq-100 Index
Tracking Stock,SM and QQQSM are trademarks or
service marks of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') and have
been licensed for use for certain purposes by the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange pursuant to a License Agreement with Nasdaq. The Nasdaq-100
Index[supreg] (the ``Index'') is determined, composed and calculated
by Nasdaq without regard to the Licensee, the Nasdaq-100
Trust,SM or the beneficial owners of Nasdaq-100
Shares.SM Nasdaq has complete control and sole discretion
in determining, comprising or calculating the Index or in modifying
in any way its method for determining, comprising or calculating the
Index in the future.
    \28\ See SR-SCCP-2006-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix A. Appendix A of the Exchange's fee schedule contains
general fees that are currently assessed on members, foreign currency
options (``FCO'') participants, member organizations, or FCO
participant organizations that are not transaction-based, such that
many of the fees relate to gaining access to trading on the Exchange or
being physically present on the trading floor. As set forth below, the
Exchange intends to adopt, modify, or delete, as appropriate, several
fees to accommodate the trading of equity securities on XLE.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt permit fees related to the trading
of equity securities on XLE. Currently, the Exchange assesses a permit
fee to access trading on the Exchange. Permit fees are assessed based
on how each permit is used. Specifically, the Exchange will charge an
Order Flow Provider a permit fee of $200 per month to submit orders to
XLE only and $300 per month to submit orders to more than one trading
venue (i.e., XLE, foreign currency options trading floor, or options
trading floor). Members who are registered as Market Maker Authorized
Traders \29\ will be charged $1,200 per month for the first permit and
$1,000 per month for each additional permit for members in the same
member organization. If a member organization only sponsors a Sponsored
Participant and does not have any other trading functions, the permit
holder associated with that member organization will be charged a
permit fee of $1,200 per month and $1,000 per month for additional
permits for members in the same member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The term ``Market Maker Authorized Trader'' means a
Participant Authorized User who is a member and who performs market
making activities pursuant to Phlx Rules 170 et. seq. A Participant
Authorized User means an individual authorized by a member
organization or a Sponsored Participant to enter orders, on its
behalf, on XLE. See Phlx Rules 1(m) and 1(x).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The permit fees will be assessed consistent with current practices.
For example, any member who is associated with one or more member
organizations and uses a permit in more than one category will pay the
higher of the applicable fees each month for such permit.\30\ In
addition, permits may not be transferred from one permit holder
associated with one member organization to a permit holder associated
with a different member organization, thus a Transfer Fee is
inapplicable for permits relating to XLE trading.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49157 (January 30,
2004), 69 FR 5883 (February 6, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2004-02).
    \31\ Permits, however, may be transferred within a member
organization without incurring a Transfer Fee. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 49157 (January 30, 2004), 69 FR 5883
(February 6, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2004-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excess permit fees \32\ will continue to apply, but will be
expanded to include XLE users. Therefore, permit holders may be
designated as ``excess'' permit holders in cases where permit holders
in the same organization, other than the permit holder who qualifies
the member organization, are either: (1) not floor brokers,
specialists, ROTs (including RSQTs and SQTs), Off-Floor Traders, Market
Maker Authorized Traders, or an XLE Sponsoring Member Organization
whose only function is to sponsor a Sponsored Participant; or (2) not
associated with a member organization that meets the definition of an
Order Flow Provider, which now includes submitting orders to XLE. The
rate remains unchanged. Thus, member organizations that have excess
permit holders will continue to be assessed $200 for each ``excess''
permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49856 (June 15,
2004), 69 FR 34411 (June 21, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2004-32) and 53043
(December 29, 2005), 71 FR 959 (January 6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to charge Sponsoring Member
Organizations an application fee of $1,850.00 for each Sponsored
Participant that it proposes to sponsor to help offset the costs
associated with the processing of the application, including
administrative costs associated with reviewing the application and
creating the appropriate accounts.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ This fee is the same amount as the Exchange's current
application ($350.00) and initiation fees ($1,500) combined for
members and member organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Account Fee also will continue to apply to member organizations
that trade on XLE. Currently, the Exchange charges member organizations
a monthly fee of $50.00 for each account beyond the number of permits
billed to that member organization.\34\ Therefore, if a member
organization sponsors a Sponsored Participant and establishes a new
account, each account beyond the number of permits billed to that
member organization would be subject to the $50.00 fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Each account may have 22 suffixes or sub-accounts. For
example, account number 202 can actually be used as accounts 202-A,
202-B, etc. There is no additional charge for suffixes assigned
within the same account. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
53046 (January 3, 2006), 71 FR 1459 (January 9, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-
89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, any equity floor-based fees, such as post and booth
space fees, would no longer apply to members or member organizations
due to the fact that there will no longer be a physical equity trading
floor.\35\ The Exchange will not assess these equity floor-based fees
for any part of the month in which XLE is launched.\36\ These fees will

remain on the fee schedule as applicable to the Exchange's other
trading floors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Examples of these floor-based fees include trading post/
booth space, controller space, floor facility, direct wire to the
floor, telephone system line extension, trading floor personnel
registration, computer equipment services, repairs or replacements,
and computer relocation requests. These fees will remain on Appendix
A to reflect that they will still be assessed on members,
participants, and member or participant organizations on the options
and/or foreign currency options trading floors.
    \36\ For example, if XLE is launched in mid-November, no equity
floor-based fees from Appendix A will be assessed for the month of
November.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete from the fee schedule any fees
applicable only to the equity trading floor, such as the stock
execution machine registration fee, due to the fact that there will no
longer be a physical equity trading floor. Additionally, the Exchange
proposes to delete all Remote Specialist fees,\37\ since Remote
Specialists will not exist in XLE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Specifically, these fees include the Remote Specialist
System Fee, Remote Specialist Security Routing Fee, Remote
Specialist Telecommunications Installation Fee, Remote Specialist
Telecommunications Fee, Remote Specialist Equipment Installation
Fee, and Remote Specialist Equipment Rental Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apart from the launch of XLE and merely to update the fee schedule,
the Exchange also proposes to delete the ``Equity, Option or FCO
Transmission Charge'' and the ``FCO Pricing Tape'' fees because the
Exchange will no longer be providing these services. Thus, a charge for
these services will not be assessed.
    The Exchange also proposes to delete its Off-Floor Examinations Fee
of $30.00 per month per off-floor trader and, in turn, amend its
Examinations Fee. The implementation of a tiered monthly Examinations
Fee will replace the Off-Floor Examinations Fee. Currently, the
Exchange assesses a monthly fee of $30.00 per off-floor trader for off-
floor traders associated with member organizations for whom the
Exchange is the Designated Examining Authority (``DEA'').\38\ With the
closing of the Exchange's equity trading floor, traders that previously
physically traded on the floor of the Exchange (and for whom the
Exchange was the DEA for their member organization) will no longer be
considered ``on-floor traders,'' but will now be designated as ``off-
floor traders'' and therefore would now fall under and be assessed the
Off-Floor Examinations Fee.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53643 (April 13,
2006), 71 FR 20151 (April 19, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-23).
    \39\ The Examinations Fee is applicable to member/participant
organizations for whom the Exchange is the DEA, unless an exemption
to the assessment of the Examinations Fee applies. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 46392 (August 21, 2002), 67 FR
55294 (August 28, 2002) (SR-Phlx-2002-45) and 42562 (March 22,
2000), 65 FR 16445 (March 28, 2000) (SR-Phlx-00-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the unintended consequences that XLE would now cover
additional traders that previously were not covered under the Off-Floor
Examinations Fee, the Exchange is proposing to delete the Off-Floor
Examinations Fee and adopt a tiered Examinations Fee based on the
number of off-floor traders in a member organization.\40\ Specifically,
a member organization will be assessed a monthly fee of $2,100 for one
to ten off-floor traders; $2,600 for eleven to fifty off-floor traders;
$5,000 for fifty-one to two hundred off-floor traders; and $12,500 for
over two hundred off-floor traders in the same member organization. The
following member organizations will continue to be exempt from the
Examinations Fee, consistent with current practice: (1) inactive
organizations; \41\ and (2) organizations operating through one or more
Phlx trading venues that demonstrated that 25% or more of its revenue
as reflected on the most recently submitted FOCUS Report or
transactions as reflected on its purchase and sales blotter are derived
from securities transactions on the Phlx. The Exchange proposes to
eliminate the following exemptions to clarify and simplify the
application of the Examinations Fee: (1) the exemption category for
member organizations for any month where they incur transaction or
clearing fees charged directly by the Exchange or by its registered
clearing subsidiary, provided that the fees exceed the examination fee
for that month and (2) the exemption for member organizations
affiliated with a member organization exempt from the Examination Fee
due to the exemption listed immediately above or the exemption if that
member organization is affiliated with a member organization operating
from the Phlx trading floor or as a Remote Specialist which have
demonstrated that at least 25% or more of their income as reflected on
the most recently submitted FOCUS Report was derived from floor
activities or remote specialist activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ For purposes of assessing the proposed tiered Examinations
Fee, Sponsored Participants are not included in the calculation of
the number of off-floor traders in a Sponsoring Member Organization.
    \41\ In connection with amending the Examinations Fee as
described above, the definition of an inactive organization is being
modified slightly so that it will be defined as an organization that
had no securities transaction revenue, as determined by FOCUS
reports or other financial filings, as long as the organization
continues to have no such revenue each month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed revised Examinations Fee, which would apply to many of
the members currently covered by the Off-Floor Examinations Fee, should
more efficiently and effectively assess member organizations for
recovery of regulatory-related costs related to conducting examinations
and should clarify how the Examinations Fee will be assessed in
connection with the member organizations that trade equity securities
on XLE.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The proposed Examinations Fee would be implemented the
first full month after XLE is launched. For example, if XLE is
launched in mid-November, the current off-floor Examinations Fee
will apply for the month of November and the Examinations Fee set
forth in this proposal would be assessed beginning with the month of
December.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to renumber the footnotes on the
Exchange's fee schedule to reflect the changes described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Phlx believes that the proposed rule change to amend its
schedule of fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\43\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\44\
in particular, in that it is designed to assure the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among its members and
other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \45\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\46\ since it establishes or changes a due, fee or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \46\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary of appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
November 2, 2006 and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is
December 12, 2006. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period
within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule
change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission
considers the period to commence on December 12, 2006 the date on
which Phlx filed Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2006-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-70. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-Phlx-2006-70 and should be submitted on or before January
12, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\48\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21906 Filed 12-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4231-4232]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01591]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0654; FRL-9499-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Beverage Can Surface
Coating (EPA ICR Number 0663.14, OMB Control Number 2060-0001), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31,
2022. Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal
Register, on February 8, 2021 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 28,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0654, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under

30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Beverage
Can Surface Coating (40 CFR part 60, subpart WW) were proposed on
November 26, 1980; promulgated on August 25, 1983; and most-recently
amended on October 17, 2000. These regulations apply to each operation
of the following surface coating lines in the Beverage Can Surface
Coating industry: (1) Exterior base; (2) over-varnished; and (3) inside
spray. New facilities include those that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after the date of proposal. In general,
all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests,
and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected
facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. This information is being collected
to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WW.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Beverage can surface coating
facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart WW)
    Estimated number of respondents: 46 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 4,970 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $686,000 (per year), which includes $97,000
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an overall decrease in burden
from the most-recently approved ICR due to adjustments. This decrease
is not due to any program changes: There is a decrease in the total
burden hours from the most-recently approved ICR because of a decrease
in the number of sources subject to these standards. This ICR
incorporates more accurate estimates of existing sources based on a
review of beverage can surface coating operations subject to other
federal regulations. The decrease in the number of respondents also
results in a decrease in the operation and maintenance costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-01591 Filed 1-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P