[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41845-41850]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17870]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64856; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-092]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend Fee Pilot Program for NASDAQ Last Sale

 July 12, 2011.
    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 June 30, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing to extend for three months the fee pilot
pursuant to which NASDAQ distributes the NASDAQ Last Sale (``NLS'')
market data products. NLS allows data distributors to have access to
real-time market data for a capped fee, enabling those distributors to
provide free access to the data to millions of individual investors via
the internet and television. Specifically, NASDAQ offers the ``NASDAQ
Last Sale for NASDAQ'' and ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex'' data
feeds containing last sale activity in US equities within the NASDAQ
Market Center and reported to the jointly-operated FINRA/NASDAQ Trade
Reporting Facility (``FINRA/NASDAQ TRF''), which is jointly operated by
NASDAQ and the Financial Industry

Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). The purpose of this proposal is to
extend the existing pilot program for three months, from July 1, 2011
through September 30, 2011.
    This pilot program supports the aspiration of Regulation NMS to
increase the availability of proprietary data by allowing market forces
to determine the amount of proprietary market data information that is
made available to the public and at what price. During the pilot
period, the program has vastly increased the availability of NASDAQ
proprietary market data to individual investors. Based upon data from
NLS distributors, NASDAQ believes that since its launch in July 2008,
the NLS data has been viewed by over 50,000,000 investors on Web sites
operated by Google, Interactive Data, and Dow Jones, among others.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

7039. NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds

    (a) For a three month pilot period commencing on [April] July 1,
2011, NASDAQ shall offer two proprietary data feeds containing real-
time last sale information for trades executed on NASDAQ or reported to
the NASDAQ/FINRA Trade Reporting Facility.
    (1)-(2) No change.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

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
    Prior to the launch of NLS, public investors that wished to view
market data to monitor their portfolios generally had two choices: (1)
pay for real-time market data or (2) use free data that is 15 to 20
minutes delayed. To increase consumer choice, NASDAQ proposed a pilot
to offer access to real-time market data to data distributors for a
capped fee, enabling those distributors to disseminate the data at no
cost to millions of internet users and television viewers. NASDAQ now
proposes a three-month extension of that pilot program, subject to the
same fee structure as is applicable today.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NASDAQ previously stated that it would file a proposed rule
change to make the NLS pilot fees permanent. NASDAQ has also
informed Commission staff that it is consulting with FINRA to
develop a proposed rule change by FINRA to allow inclusion of FINRA/
NASDAQ TRF data in NLS on a permanent basis. Based on the progress
of these discussions, NASDAQ expects that it and FINRA will both
submit filings to make NLS permanent prior to the expiration of the
three-month pilot period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NLS consists of two separate ``Level 1'' products containing last
sale activity within the NASDAQ market and reported to the jointly-
operated FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. First, the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ''
data product is a real-time data feed that provides real-time last sale
information including execution price, volume, and time for executions
occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported to the
FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. Second, the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex'' data
product provides real-time last sale information including execution
price, volume, and time for NYSE- and NYSE Amex-securities executions
occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported to the
FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. By contrast, the securities information processors
(``SIPs'') that provide ``core'' data consolidate last sale information
from all exchanges and trade reporting facilities (``TRFs''). Thus, NLS
replicates a subset of the information provided by the SIPs.
    NASDAQ established two different pricing models, one for clients
that are able to maintain username/password entitlement systems and/or
quote counting mechanisms to account for usage, and a second for those
that are not. Firms with the ability to maintain username/password
entitlement systems and/or quote counting mechanisms are eligible for a
specified fee schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ Product and
a separate fee schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex Product.
Firms that are unable to maintain username/password entitlement systems
and/or quote counting mechanisms also have multiple options for
purchasing the NASDAQ Last Sale data. These firms choose between a
``Unique Visitor'' model for Internet delivery or a ``Household'' model
for television delivery. Unique Visitor and Household populations must
be reported monthly and must be validated by a third-party vendor or
ratings agency approved by NASDAQ at NASDAQ's sole discretion. In
addition, to reflect the growing confluence between these media
outlets, NASDAQ offered a reduction in fees when a single distributor
distributes NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products via multiple distribution
mechanisms.
    Second, NASDAQ established a cap on the monthly fee, currently set
at $50,000 per month for all NASDAQ Last Sale products. The fee cap
enables NASDAQ to compete effectively against other exchanges that also
offer last sale data for purchase or at no charge.
    As with the distribution of other NASDAQ proprietary products, all
distributors of the NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ and/or NASDAQ Last Sale
for NYSE/Amex products pay a single $1,500/month NASDAQ Last Sale
Distributor Fee in addition to any applicable usage fees. The $1,500
monthly fee applies to all distributors and does not vary based on
whether the distributor distributes the data internally or externally
or distributes the data via both the Internet and television.

2. Statutory Basis

    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among users and recipients of the data.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') and broker-dealers (``BDs'') increased
authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the
public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of
data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition
for the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ believes that its NASDAQ Last Sale market data products are
precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission
envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded
that Regulation NMS--by lessening regulation of the market in
proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating
efficiency and competition:
    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center

identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are
not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also
believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to
receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own
internal analysis of the need for such data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By removing unnecessary regulatory restrictions on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to BDs at
all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set
by the market as well.
    The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC [sic], 615 F.3d 525
(D.C. Cir. 2010), upheld the Commission's reliance upon competitive
markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for market data.
``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended
that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive
forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the
SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition
may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated
transactional reporting system.'
    NetCoaltion [sic], at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92
(1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).
    The court agreed with the Commission's conclusion that ``Congress
intended that `competitive forces should dictate the services and
practices that constitute the U.S. national market system for trading
equity securities.' '' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NetCoaliton [sic], at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court in NetCoalition, while upholding the Commission's
conclusion that competitive forces may be relied upon to establish the
fairness of prices, nevertheless concluded that the record in that case
did not adequately support the Commission's conclusions as to the
competitive nature of the market for NYSEArca's data product at issue
in that case. As explained below in NASDAQ's Statement on Burden on
Competition, however, NASDAQ believes that there is substantial
evidence of competition in the marketplace for data that was not in the
record in the NetCoalition case, and that the Commission is entitled to
rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this
filing are the product of competition, and therefore in accordance with
the relevant statutory standards.\8\ Moreover, NASDAQ further notes
that the product at issue in this filing--a NASDAQ last sale data
product that replicates a subset of the information available through
``core'' data products whose fees have been reviewed and approved by
the SEC--is quite different from the NYSEArca depth-of-book data
product at issue in NetCoalition. Accordingly, any findings of the
court with respect to that product may not be relevant to the product
at issue in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ It should also be noted that Section 916 of Dodd- Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank
Act'') has amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3) to make it clear that all exchange fees, including
fees for market data, may be filed by exchanges on an immediately
effective basis. Although this change in the law does not alter the
Commission's authority to evaluate and ultimately disapprove
exchange rules if it concludes that they are not consistent with the
Act, it unambiguously reflects a conclusion that market data fee
changes do not require prior Commission review before taking effect,
and that a formal proceeding with regard to a particular fee change
is required only if the Commission determines that it is necessary
or appropriate to suspend the fee and institute such a proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. NASDAQ's ability to
price its Last Sale Data Products is constrained by (1) competition
between exchanges and other trading platforms that compete with each
other in a variety of dimensions; (2) the existence of inexpensive
real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed
consolidated data; and (3) the inherent contestability of the market
for proprietary last sale data.
    The market for proprietary last sale data products is currently
competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce
competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary
data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products
themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings,
trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless
opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute
their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each
individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously
competitive market.
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data
products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot
exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only
insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist
them or their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the
exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs.
This cost structure is common in content and content distribution
industries such as software, where developing new software typically
requires a large initial investment (and continuing large investments
to ``upgrade'' the software), but once the software is developed, the
incremental cost of providing that software to an additional user is
typically small, or even zero (e.g., if the software can be downloaded
over the internet after being purchased).\9\ In NASDAQ's case, it is
costly to build and maintain a trading platform, but the incremental
cost of trading each additional share on an existing platform, or
distributing an additional instance of data, is very low. Market
information and executions are each produced jointly (in the sense that
the activities of trading and placing order are the source of the
information that is distributed) and are each subject to significant
scale economies. In such cases, marginal cost pricing is not feasible
because if all sales were priced at the margin, NASDAQ would be unable
to defray its platform costs of providing the joint products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, ``The New
Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying
Defensible Criteria of Market Power,'' Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.
70, No. 3 (2003).

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

    An exchange's BD customers view the costs of transaction executions
and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A BD
will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected
revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction
execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD
chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of
the product to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product
will contain less information, because executions of the BD's trading
activity will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more
important, the product will be less valuable to that BD because it does
not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its
orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is directing
orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Similarly, in the case of products such as NLS that are distributed
through market data vendors, the vendors provide price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their
business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters
that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer
proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by
providing only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that
contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail BDs, such as Schwab and
Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it promotes
trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the
business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the
same: They can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product
that fails to provide sufficient value. NASDAQ and other producers of
proprietary data products must understand and respond to these varying
business models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary
data products successfully. Moreover, NASDAQ believes that products
such as NLS can enhance order flow to NASDAQ by providing more
widespread distribution of information about transactions in real time,
thereby encouraging wider participation in the market by investors with
access to the internet or television. Conversely, the value of such
products to distributors and investors decreases if order flow falls,
because the products contain less content.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. NASDAQ pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively
low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high
prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free
of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their
costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing
opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge
lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint
offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price
for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in
lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm
experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse to
its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price of
data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the cost
of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will fall.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including thirteen SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and
various forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark
pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to
further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and
transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all
to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and
transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSEArca, BATS, and Direct Edge.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs'
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of
proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product,
an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the
data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than
the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the
marketplace. Indeed, in the case of NLS, the data provided through that
product appears both in (i) real-time core data products offered by the
SIPs for a fee, and (ii) free

SIP data products with a 15-minute time delay, and finds a close
substitute in last-sale products of competing venues.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. Today,
BATS and Direct Edge provide data at no charge in order to attract
order flow, and use market data revenue rebates from the resulting
executions to maintain low execution charges for their users. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have
previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation
NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary
products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple
market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and
disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters.
    Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of
pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of
the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely
available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users.
Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or
20- minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide
information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for
proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of
the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free
consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for
proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset
of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of
proprietary products.
    The competitive nature of the market for products such as NLS is
borne out by the performance of the market. In May 2008, the internet
portal Yahoo! began offering its website viewers real-time last sale
data (as well as best quote data) provided by BATS Trading. In
response, in June 2008, NASDAQ launched NLS, which was initially
subject to an ``enterprise cap'' of $100,000 for customers receiving
only one of the NLS products, and $150,000 for customers receiving both
products. The majority of NASDAQ's sales were at the capped level. In
early 2009, BATS expanded its offering of free data to include depth-
of-book data. Also in early 2009, NYSEArca announced the launch of a
competitive last sale product with an enterprise price of $30,000 per
month. In response, NASDAQ combined the enterprise cap for the NLS
products and reduced the cap to $50,000 (i.e., a reduction of $100,000
per month). Although each of these products offers only a specific
subset of data available from the SIPs, NASDAQ believes that the
products are viewed as substitutes for each other and for core last-
sale data, rather than as products that must be obtained in tandem. For
example, while the internet portal Yahoo! continues to disseminate only
the BATS last sale product, Google disseminates only NASDAQ's product.
    In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees
charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair
revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition at 24. The existence of fierce
competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity
on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs
by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that
shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to
order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that
platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the
disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market data fees, the
change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the
platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower their
trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the
need for the more expensive data. Similarly, increases in the cost of
NLS would impair the willingness of distributors to take a product for
which there are numerous alternatives, impacting NLS data revenues, the
value of NLS as a tool for attracting order flow, and ultimately, the
volume of orders routed to NASDAQ and the value of its other data
products.
    In establishing the price for the NASDAQ Last Sale Products, NASDAQ
considered the competitiveness of the market for last sale data and all
of the implications of that competition. NASDAQ believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish a fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of numerous alternatives to NLS, including real-
time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary
data from other sources ensures that NASDAQ cannot set unreasonable
fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, without losing
business to these alternatives. Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that the
acceptance of the NLS product in the marketplace demonstrates the
consistency of these fees with applicable statutory standards.

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

    Three comment letters were filed regarding the proposed rule change
as originally published for comment. NASDAQ responded to these comments
in a letter dated December 13, 2007. Both the comment letters and
NASDAQ's response are available on the SEC Web site at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2006-060/nasdaq2006060.shtml. In
addition, in response to a prior filing to extend the NLS pilot,\10\
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA'')
and NetCoalition filed a comment letter contending that the SEC should
suspend and institute disapproval proceedings with respect to the
filing. The letter incorrectly asserts that the NetCoalition case
stands for the proposition that the Commission must review cost data to
substantiate a determination that competitive forces constrain the
price of market data. In fact, the court held the opposite:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64188 (April 5, 2011),
76 FR 20054 (April 11, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-044).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners believe that the SEC's market-based approach is
prohibited under the Exchange Act because the Congress intended ``fair
and reasonable'' to be determined using a cost-based approach. The SEC
counters that, because it has statutorily-granted flexibility in
evaluating market data fees, its market-based approach is fully
consistent with the Exchange Act. We agree with the SEC.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NetCoalition, 615 F3d. at 534. While the court noted that
cost data could sometimes be relevant in determining the
reasonableness of fees, it acknowledged that submission of cost data
may be inappropriate where there are ``difficulties in calculating
the direct costs * * * of market data,'' Id. at 539. That is the
case here, due to the fact that the fixed costs of market data
production are inseparable from the fixed costs of providing a
trading platform, and the marginal costs of market data production
are minimal or even zero. Because the costs of providing execution
services and market data are not unique to either of the provided
services, there is no meaningful way to allocate these costs among
the two ``joint products''--and any attempt to do so would result in
inherently arbitrary cost allocations.
    The court explicitly acknowledged that the ``joint product''
theory set forth by NASDAQ's economic experts in NetCoalition (and
also described in this filing) could explain the competitive dynamic
of the market and explain why consideration of cost data would be
unavailing. The court found, however, that the Commission could not
rely on the theory because it was not in the Commission's record.
Id. at 541 n.16. For the purpose of providing a complete explanation
of the theory, NASDAQ is further submitting as Exhibit 3 to this
filing a study that was recently submitted to the Commission in SR-
NASDAQ-2010-174. See Statement of Janusz Ordover and Gustavo
Bamberger at 2-17 (December 29, 2010).

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

    SIFMA and NetCoalition further contend the prior filing lacked
evidence supporting a conclusion that the market for NLS is
competitive, asserting that arguments about competition for order flow
and substitutability were rejected in NetCoalition. While the court did
determine that the record before it was not sufficient to allow it to
endorse those theories on the facts of that case, the court did not
itself make any conclusive findings about the actual presence or
absence of competition or the accuracy of these theories: Rather, it
simply made a finding about the state of the SEC's record. Moreover,
analysis about competition in the market for depth-of-book data is only
tangentially relevant to the market for last sale data. As discussed
above and in the prior filing, perfect and partial substitutes for NLS
exist in the form of real-time core market data, free delayed core
market data, and the last sale products of competing venues, additional
competitive entry is possible, and evidence of competition is readily
apparent in the pricing behavior of the venues offering last sale
products and the consumption patterns of their customers. Thus,
although NASDAQ believes that the competitive nature of the market for
all market data, including depth-of-book data, will ultimately be
established, SIFMA and NetCoalition's letter not only mischaracterizes
the NetCoalition decision, it also fails to address the characteristics
of the product at issue and the evidence already presented.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\12\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2011-092 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-092. 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 website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-092 and should be submitted on or before
August 5, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17870 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3220-3221]
[DOCID:fr20ja10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-21-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Mobile Bay South
II Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

January 11, 2010.
    The Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Mobile Bay South II Expansion
Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in Choctaw
County, Alabama. This EA will be used by the Commission in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    The Notice of Intent (NOI) explains the scoping process that will
be used to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
Project. Your input will help determine which issues will be evaluated
in the EA. Please note that the scoping period for this Project will
close on February 12, 2010.
    Comments on the Project may be submitted in written form or
electronically, as described in the public participation section of
this notice.
    This NOI is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing for this project, which includes affected landowners; federal,
state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected
officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American
Tribes; parties to this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers.
State and local government representatives are asked to notify their
constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on
their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/for-
citizens/citizen-guides.asp). This fact sheet addresses a number of
typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how
to participate in FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Transco proposes to install one additional 8,180 horsepower
compressor unit and related auxiliary equipment at Compressor Station
85 located at the interconnection of the Mobile Bay Lateral and
Transco's mainline in Choctaw County, Alabama, minor modifications,
including installation of gas coolers, at the existing Compressor
Station 83 in Mobile County, Alabama, and a new tap, valve, and
associated piping to interconnect with an additional meter station to
be constructed, owned, and operated by Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC (``Florida Gas'') adjacent to its existing Citronelle
meter station in Mobile County, Alabama.
    A location map depicting the proposed facilities is attached to
this NOI as Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not printed in
the Federal Register, but they are being provided to all those who
receive this notice in the mail. Copies of the NOI can be obtained
from the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link,
Commission's Public Reference Room, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the end of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as results of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils.
     Water resources.
     Aquatic resources Vegetation and wildlife.
     Threatened and endangered species.
     Land use, recreation, and visual resources.
     Cultural resources.
     Socioeconomics.
     Air quality and noise.
     Reliability and safety.
     Cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention
based on our previous experience with similar

projects in the region. This preliminary list of issues, which is
presented below, may be revised based on your comments and our
continuing analyses specific to the Project.
     Potential noise and vibration impacts from compressor
station.
     Air quality impacts from the compressor station
construction and operation.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
written comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
February 12, 2010.
    Comments on the proposed Project can be submitted to the FERC in
written form. For your convenience, there are three methods which you
can use to submit your written comments to the Commission. In all
instances please reference the Project docket number (CP10-21-000) with
your submission. The three methods are:
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located at http://www.ferc.gov under the link
called ``Documents and Filings''. A Quick Comment is an easy method for
interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
``eFiling'' feature that is listed under the ``Documents and Filings''
link. eFiling involves preparing your submission in the same manner as
you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on your
computer's hard drive. You will attach that file to your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on the links
called ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister''. You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file your comments with the Commission via mail by
sending your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners whose
property may be used temporarily for project purposes, who have
existing easements from the pipeline, or who own homes within distances
defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground
facilities. By this notice we are also asking governmental agencies,
especially those in Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming
cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
Internet at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits, in the Docket Number field. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-915 Filed 1-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notice]
[Page 50347-50348]
[DOCID:fr31au07-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. RP00-632-025]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 24, 2007.
    Take notice that on August 21, 2007, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
September 1, 2007:

Thirty-First Revised Sheet No. 31.
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 31A.
Thirty-Fourth Revised Sheet No. 32.
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 32A.
Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 39.
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 39A.

    DTI states that the purpose of this filing is to revise DTI's fuel
retention percentages applicable to Rate Schedules FT, FTNN, FTNNGSS,
FTGSS, FTSC, FTNNSC, IT, and MCS (Wheeling) to reflect the suspension
of its Transportation Amortization Adder as of September 1, 2007. DTI
states that it is removing the Transportation Amortization Adder in
compliance with the terms of its June 22, 2001 settlement in Docket No.
RP00-632-003 which requires the adder to be eliminated upon collection
of the 5.2895 MMDt allocated to transportation services.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that

document on all the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17260 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79247-79249]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32669]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65976; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-172]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Extension of the Exchange's Penny Pilot Program and Replacement of
Penny Pilot Issues That Have Been Delisted

 December 15, 2011.
    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 December 2, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Phlx
Rule 1034 (Minimum Increments) to amend Phlx Rule 1034 (Minimum
Increments) to: Extend through June 30, 2012, the Penny Pilot Program
in options classes in certain issues (``Penny Pilot'' or ``Pilot'');
and replace any Penny Pilot issues that have been delisted.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007 and in
October 2009 was expanded and extended through December 31, 2010.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55153 (January 23, 2007),
72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-74) (notice of filing
and approval order establishing Penny Pilot); 60873 (October 23,
2009), 74 FR 56675 (November 2, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-91) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny
Pilot); 60966 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59331 (November 17, 2009)
(SR-Phlx-2009-94) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61454 (February 1,
2010), 75 FR 6233 (February 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-12) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to
Penny Pilot); 62028 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25890 (May 10, 2010) (SR-
Phlx-2010-65) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62616 (July 30, 2010), 75 FR
47664 (August 6, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-103) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
and 63395 (November 30, 2010), 75 FR 76062 (December 7, 2010) (SR-
Phlx-2010-167) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
extending the Penny Pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the amended Exchange rule is set forth immediately
below. Proposed new language is in italics and proposed deleted
language is [bracketed].\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Changes are marked to the rules of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC found
at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
Rule 1034. Minimum Increments
    (a) Except as provided in sub-paragraph (i)(B) below, all options
on stocks, index options, and Exchange Traded Options quoting in
decimals at $3.00 or higher shall have a minimum increment of $.10, and
all options on stocks and index options quoting in decimals under $3.00
shall have a minimum increment of $.05.
    (i)(A) No Change.
    (B) For a pilot period scheduled to expire [December 31, 2011] June
30, 2012 (the ``pilot''), certain options shall be quoted and traded on
the Exchange in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in such
options with a price of less than $3.00, and in minimum increments of
$0.05 for all series in such options with a price of $3.00 or higher,

except that options overlying the PowerShares QQQ Trust
(``QQQQ''),[supreg] SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Funds (``SPY''), and
iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds (``IWM'') shall be quoted and traded
in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series regardless of the price.
A list of such options shall be communicated to membership via an
Options Trader Alert (``OTA'') posted on the Exchange's Web site.
    The Exchange may replace any pilot issues that have been delisted
with the next most actively traded multiply listed options classes that
are not yet included in the pilot, based on trading activity [in the
previous six months]for the six month period beginning June 1, 2011,
and ending November 30, 2011. The replacement issues may be added to
the pilot on the second trading day following January 1, [2011 and July
1, 2011]2012.
    (C) No Change.
    (ii)-(iii) No Change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq 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 purpose of this filing is to amend Phlx Rule 1034 to extend the
Penny Pilot through June 30, 2012 and replace any Penny Pilot issues
that have been delisted.
    For a pilot period scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011, the
Penny Pilot allows certain options to be quoted and traded on the
Exchange in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in such options
with a price of less than $3.00; and in minimum increments of $0.05 for
all series in such options with a price of $3.00 or higher. Options
overlying the PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQQ'')[supreg], SPDR S&P 500
Exchange Traded Funds (``SPY''), and iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds
(``IWM''), however, are quoted and traded in minimum increments of
$0.01 for all series regardless of the price. Currently the Exchange
trades 361 options classes pursuant to the Penny Pilot.
    The Penny Pilot is a very successful and efficacious pricing
program that is beneficial to traders, investors, and public customers,
and the Exchange has received numerous requests to expand and continue
it. This proposal allows the Penny Pilot to continue in its current
format for six months through June 30, 2012.
    Commensurate with the extension of the Penny Pilot through June 30,
2012, the Exchange proposes to replace any Penny Pilot issues that have
been delisted with the next most actively traded multiply listed
options classes that are not yet included in the Pilot. The replacement
issues will be selected based on trading activity for the six month
period beginning June 1, 2011, and ending November 30, 2011. The
replacement issues would be added to the Pilot on the second trading
day following January 1, 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The replacement issues will be announced to the Exchange's
membership via an OTA posted on the Exchange's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with this extension proposal, the Exchange agrees to
submit a report to the Commission regarding the Penny Pilot that will
include: (1) Best Bid or Offer (``BBO'') spread, in terms of data and
analysis on the number of quotations generated for options included in
the report; (2) size of BBO, in terms of an assessment of the quotation
spreads for the options included in the report; (3) industry Average
Daily Volume (``ADV''), in terms of data reflecting the size and depth
of markets; (4) an assessment of the impact of the Pilot Program on the
capacity of Phlx's automated systems; and (5) any capacity problems or
other problems that arose related to the operation of the Pilot Program
and how the Exchange addressed them.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, by extending the Penny Pilot and
replacing delisted Penny Pilot issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Penny Pilot is a very successful and
efficacious pricing program that is beneficial to traders, investors,
and public customers, and the Exchange has received numerous requests
to expand and continue it. This proposal allows the Penny Pilot to
continue in its current format through June 30, 2012.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19bb-
4-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19bb-4-
4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2011-172 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2011-172. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-2011-172 and should be
submitted on or before January 11, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32669 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 173)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46319-46322]
[DOCID:fr09se09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0563; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-180-AD;
Amendment 39-16005; AD 2009-18-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    A recent design review has been carried out on the F28 Mark
0070/0100 fuel system in accordance with the guidelines related to
FAA SFAR 88 [Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88] (Fuel Tank
Safety Program) and JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] INT/POL/25/12.
The review revealed that under certain failure conditions, prolonged
dry running of the fuel transfer pumps may result in an ignition
source in the centre wing fuel tank. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to ignition of flammable fuel vapors,
resulting in fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
aircraft.
* * * * *
    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 14, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 14,
2009.
    On October 27, 1999 (64 FR 51202, September 22, 1999), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
certain other publications listed in this AD.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 June 19, 2009 (74 FR
29144), and proposed to supersede AD 99-20-01, Amendment 39-11329 (64
FR 51202, September 22, 1999). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    A recent design review has been carried out on the F28 Mark
0070/0100 fuel system in accordance with the guidelines related to
FAA SFAR 88 [Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88] (Fuel Tank
Safety Program) and JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] INT/POL/25/12.
The review revealed that under certain failure conditions, prolonged
dry running of the fuel transfer pumps may result in an ignition
source in the centre wing fuel tank. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to ignition of flammable fuel vapors,
resulting in fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
aircraft.
    To address and correct this unsafe condition, new software
(version V13.55) has been developed for the Flight Warning Computer
(FWC). This software update introduces a decreased time delay of the
centre wing fuel tank low pressure alert from 15 minutes to 60
seconds, to stop prolonged dry running of the fuel transfer pumps.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA Airworthiness
Directive (AD) requires the replacement of the FWC with a modified
unit, incorporating software version V13.55.

    The corrective actions include revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM) to change certain indications and warnings; installing new
software for the multifunction display unit (MFDU); and installing a
new resistor in the thrust reverser indicator and control system, or an
improved thrust reverser unlock indication relay. 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 our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects about 4 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 99-20-01 and retained in this
AD take about 7 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $80
per work hour. Required parts cost about $1,593 per product. Based on
these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is
$2,153 per product.
    We estimate that it takes about 7 work-hours per product to comply
with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is
$80 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $5,350 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be
$23,640, or $5,910 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this 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 Operations office
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 Operations 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 removing Amendment 39-11329 (64 FR
51202, September 22, 1999) and adding the following new AD:

2009-18-09 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-16005. Docket No. FAA-
2009-0563; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-180-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October
14, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 99-20-01, Amendment 39-11329.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes, all serial numbers.
    (2) Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 airplanes, serial numbers 11521,
11528 through 11537 inclusive, 11545, 11547, 11553, 11557, 11561,
11562, 11566, 11567, 11571, 11572, 11576 through 11579 inclusive,
and 11581 through 11583 inclusive. All airplanes with these serial
numbers are fitted with center wing fuel tanks.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 31 and 78:
Instruments and Engine Exhaust, respectively.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A recent design review has been carried out on the F28 Mark
0070/0100 fuel system in accordance with the guidelines related to
FAA SFAR 88 [Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88] (Fuel Tank
Safety Program) and JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] INT/POL/25/12.
The review revealed that under certain failure conditions, prolonged
dry running of the fuel transfer pumps may result in an ignition
source in the centre wing fuel tank. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to ignition of flammable fuel vapors,
resulting in fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
aircraft.
    To address and correct this unsafe condition, new software
(version V13.55) has been developed for the Flight Warning Computer
(FWC). This software update introduces a decreased time delay of the
centre wing fuel tank low pressure alert from 15 minutes to 60
seconds, to stop prolonged dry running of the fuel transfer pumps.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA Airworthiness
Directive (AD) requires the replacement of the FWC with a modified
unit, incorporating software version V13.55.
    The corrective actions include revising the airplane flight
manual (AFM) to change certain indications and warnings; installing
new software for the multifunction display unit (MFDU); and
installing a new resistor in the thrust reverser indicator and
control system, or an improved thrust reverser unlock indication
relay.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 99-20-01 With No Changes to the
Modifications

    (f) Unless already done, within 18 months after October 27, 1999
(the effective date of AD 99-20-01), modify the electrical wiring of
the FWC in accordance with Part 1 or 2, as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-
047, Revision 1, dated March 21, 1997.

    Note 1: It is not necessary to install computer software version
V10.40 into the FWC, since a later version is available and is
required to be installed by AD 99-20-01.

    (g) Unless already done, concurrently with the accomplishment of
the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD, install upgraded
computer software version V11.45 into the FWC in accordance with
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-051, dated August 15, 1998.

    Note 2: AlliedSignal Grimes Aerospace has issued Service
Bulletin 80-0610-31-0031, dated May 14, 1998, as an additional
source

of guidance for installation of the upgraded computer software
version into the FWC.

    Note 3: Operators should note that Fokker Service Bulletin
SBF100-31-051, dated August 15, 1998, specifies prior or concurrent
accomplishment of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-014 (which
specifies concurrent accomplishment of Fokker Component Service
Bulletin (CSB) P41440-78-04, and prior or concurrent accomplishment
of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-012 and CSB P41440-78-05).
Related FAA AD 99-20-02, amendment 39-11330, requires accomplishment
of these four other service bulletins.

New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance

    (h) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace FWC units having part number (P/N) 80-0610-3-45 and P/N 80-
0610-3-50 with modified units having P/N 80-0610-3-55, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin
SBF100-31-067, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008.
    (2) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD and
concurrently with the accomplishment of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD,
revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the
airplane flight manual (AFM), as specified in Fokker Manual Change
Notification-Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-050, dated January
31, 2008, which is included in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-
067, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008. These AFM sections provide
alterations, which are introduced in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-
31-067, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008.

    Note 4: Revisions to the Emergency Procedures and Abnormal
Procedures sections of the AFM, as specified in Fokker MCNO-F100-
050, dated January 31, 2008, may be done by inserting copies of
Fokker MCNO-F100-050, dated January 31, 2008, into the AFM. When the
information in Fokker MCNO-F100-050, dated January 31, 2008, has
been included in general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions
may be inserted in the AFM, provided the relevant information in the
general revisions are identical to that in Fokker MCNO-F100-050,
dated January 31, 2008.

    (3) After accomplishing paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, no person
may install an FWC having P/N 80-0610-3-45 or P/N 80-0610-3-50,
unless it has been modified to P/N 80-0610-3-55 standard in
accordance with Honeywell Service Bulletin 80-0610-31-0003, dated
February 13, 2008.
    (4) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD,
install software version V12 for the MFDU in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-
060, dated June 1, 2002.
    (5) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the thrust reverser indication and control system in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-
78-016, dated October 1, 1999; or modify the thrust reverser unlock
indication relay in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017, dated December 1, 1999.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 5: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    (1) Replacing the MFDU in accordance with Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-31-060, dated June 1, 2002, is not included in the
MCAI; however, this AD includes that action. It is necessary to
install a new version of the MFDU software before installing the new
version of the FWC software.
    (2) Modifying the thrust reverser indication and control system
in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016, dated
October 1, 1999; or modifying the thrust reverser unlock indication
relay in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017,
dated December 1, 1999, is not included in the MCAI; however, this
AD includes those actions. It is necessary to do one of those
actions before installing the MFDU software.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
    (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, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0090, dated May 13, 2008, and the service information
identified in Table 1 of this AD, for related information.

                                          Table 1--Related Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Service information--                 Revision level--                        Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-047...  1..........................  March 21, 1997.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-051...  Original...................  August 15, 1998.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-060...  Original...................  June 1, 2002.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067,    1..........................  April 24, 2008.
 including Fokker Manual Change
 Notification-Operational Documentation
 MCNO-F100-50, dated January 31, 2008.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016...  Original...................  October 1, 1999.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017...  Original...................  December 1, 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use the service information contained in Table 2 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.

                                 Table 2--All Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Document                            Revision                              Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-047...  1..........................  March 21, 1997.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-051...  Original...................  August 15, 1998.

Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-060...  Original...................  June 1, 2002.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067,    1..........................  April 24, 2008.
 including Fokker Manual Change
 Notification-Operational Documentation
 MCNO-F100-50, dated January 31, 2008.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016...  Original...................  October 1, 1999.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017...  Original...................  December 1, 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information contained in
Table 3 of this AD under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

                                 Table 3--New Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Document                            Revision                              Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-060...  Original...................  June 1, 2002.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067,    1..........................  April 24, 2008.
 including Fokker Manual Change
 Notification-Operational Documentation
 MCNO-F100-50, dated January 31, 2008.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016...  Original...................  October 1, 1999.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017...  Original...................  December 1, 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved
the incorporation by reference of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-
047, Revision 1, dated March 21, 1997; and Fokker Service Bulletin
SBF100-31-051, dated August 15, 1998; on October 27, 1999 (64 FR
51202, September 22, 1999).
    (3) For Fokker service information identified in this AD,
contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box
231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-
627-350; fax +31 (0)252-627-211; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.myfokkerfleet.com.
    (4) For AlliedSignal Grimes Aerospace and Honeywell service
information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell Aerospace,
Technical Publications and Distribution, M/S 2101-201, P.O. Box
52170, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2170; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 602-
365-5577; Internet http://www.honeywell.com.
    (5) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-20840 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P