			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 24, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2000-7565

________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Lineas Aereas Suramericanas, Ltda.			Date Filed:  September
15, 2004

Relief requested: Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to conduct scheduled
foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or
points in Colombia, and the terminal points San Juan, Puerto Rico, and
Miami, Florida; and all-cargo charters subject to 14 CFR Part 212.

Date and citation of last action:  Lineas Aereas Suramericanas most
recently held this all-cargo authority during the period August 27,
2003-August 27, 2004.  See Notice of Action Taken, dated August 27,
2003, in this docket.

Applicant representative:  Claudia Cote<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved						Action date:  September 24, 2004

(We acted on this application without awaiting expiration of the 15-day
answer period with the consent of all parties served.)

Effective dates of authority granted:  September 24, 2004-September 24,
2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Air Transport
Agreement between the United States and Colombia

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of the all-cargo charter services authorized above, LAS shall not
perform any charter(s) unless specific authority in the form of a
statement of authorization for such charter(s) has been granted by the
Department.  See Order 91-8-6.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

					05/2004


[Federal Register: October 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 53737]
[DOCID:fr20oc09-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-1-000]

High Majestic Wind Energy Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

October 9, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
High Majestic Wind Energy Center, LLC application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 29, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25088 Filed 10-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 24886-24889]
[DOCID:fr27ap06-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53692; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change and
Amendment No. 1 Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Amending Exchange Delisting Rules To Conform to
Recent Amendments to Commission Rules Regarding Removal From Listing
and Withdrawal From Registrations

April 20, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On October 25, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange delisting rules
to conform to recent amendments to Commission rules regarding removal
from listing and withdrawal from registration. On January 4, 2006, Phlx
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The proposed rule
change, as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register
on

March 23, 2006.\4\ On March 31, 2006, Phlx filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change.\5\ On April 12, 2006, Phlx filed Amendment No. 3
to the proposed rule change.\6\ No comments were received regarding the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended, on
an accelerated basis, publishes notice of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the
proposed rule change, and grants accelerated approval to Amendment Nos.
2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, Phlx amended its rule text and the
purpose section of the Exchange's Form 19b-4 to clarify the
effective date of the proposed rule change and revised Phlx Rule 809
to state that an issuer proposing to withdraw a security from
listing on the Exchange must provide a copy of Form 25 to the
Exchange upon filing with the Commission.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53496 (March 16,
2006), 71 FR 14769.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, Phlx amended its rule text to a clarify
that an issuer that is below the continued listing policies and
standards of the Exchange and seeks to voluntarily apply to withdraw
a class of securities from listing must disclose that it is no
longer eligible for continued listing in its statement of material
facts relating to the reason for withdrawal from listing, its public
press release, and its Web site notice.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange revised Phlx Rule 811 to
clarify that an issuer that is below the continued listing policies
and stadards of the Exchange and considering delisting may file a
delistign application pursuant to the procedures outlined in amended
Phlx Rule 809(b)-(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Section 12 of the Act \7\ and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder \8\ (``SEC
Rule 12d2-2'') govern the process for the delisting and deregistration
of securities listed on national securities exchanges. Recent
amendments to SEC Rule 12d2-2 (``amended SEC Rule 12d2-2'') and other
Commission rules require the electronic filing of revised Form 25 \9\
on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval
(``EDGAR'') system by exchanges and issuers for all delistings, other
than delistings of standardized options and securities futures, which
are exempted.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2.
    \9\ 17 CFR 249.25.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14,
2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005) (``SEC Rule 12d2-2 Approval
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of exchange-initiated delistings, amended SEC Rule
12d2-2(b) states that a national securities exchange may file an
application on Form 25 to strike a class of securities from listing
and/or withdraw the registration of such securities, in accordance with
its rules, if the rules of such exchange, at a minimum, provide for:
    (i) Notice to the issuer of the exchange's decision to delist its
securities;
    (ii) An opportunity for appeal to the exchange's board of
directors, or to a committee designated by the board; and
    (iii) Public notice of the national securities exchange's final
determination to remove the security from listing and/or registration,
by issuing a press release and posting notice on its Web site. Public
notice must be disseminated no fewer than 10 days before the delisting
becomes effective pursuant to amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(d)(1), and must
remain posted on its Web site until the delisting is effective.
    Phlx Rule 811 (Delisting Policies and Procedures) establishes the
procedures for the Exchange to delist a company that is below the
Exchange's continued listing criteria. The Exchange proposes to revise
Phlx Rule 811 to incorporate the new requirements set forth in amended
SEC Rule 12d2-2(b). The provisions set forth in current Phlx Rule 811,
which provide for notification to the issuer in the event that the
Exchange determines to delist the issuer's securities and the right to
appeal the Exchange's determination, satisfy the minimum provisions set
forth in amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b)(1)(i)-(ii). Phlx rules do not
currently provide for the mandated public notice, and accordingly,
amended Phlx Rule 811(g) would require the Exchange to provide public
notice of its final determination to remove a security from listing
and/or registration, pursuant to SEC Rule 12d2-2(b)(1)(iii). In
addition, proposed Commentary to Phlx Rule 810 would require the
Exchange to deliver a copy of the Form 25 promptly to the issuer,
pursuant to amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b)(2).
    With respect to issuer voluntary delisting procedures, the Exchange
proposes to amend Phlx Rule 811 to require an issuer seeking to
voluntarily delist from the Exchange to submit Form 25 to the
Commission in compliance with the requirements of amended SEC Rule
12d2-2(c). In addition, the issuer would be required to provide a copy
of the Form 25 to the Exchange simultaneously with the filing of the
Form with the Commission.
    In addition, Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 809(c) to clarify
that not less than ten days before the issuer submits Form 25 an issuer
seeking to voluntarily apply to withdraw a security from listing on the
Exchange where the issuer has received notice from the Exchange,
pursuant to Phlx Rule 811 or otherwise, that the issuer is below the
Exchange's continued listing policies and standards, or that the issuer
is aware that it is below such continued listing policies and standards
notwithstanding that it has not received such notice from the Exchange,
must:
    (i) Provide written notice to the Exchange of its decision to
withdraw from listing indicating all material facts relating to the
reasons for withdraw in compliance with amended SEC Rule 312d2-2(c);
and
    (ii) Contemporaneously with providing such notice to the Exchange
disclose that it is no longer eligible for continued listing (including
the specific continued listing policies and standards that the issue is
below) in (A) its statement of all material facts relating to the
reasons for withdrawal from listing provided to the Exchange along with
written notice of its determination to withdraw from listing required
by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(ii), and (B) its release and Web site
notice required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange has proposed changes in its rules to clarify
that the Form 25 serves as the application to remove a security from
listing and/or registration and to specify that the proposed changes
will be effective as of April 24, 2006 as required by amended SEC Rule
12d2-2.

III. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
\12\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\13\
Specifically, as discussed below, the Commission finds that the
proposal, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\14\ which requires, in part, that the rules of an exchange be
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 regulating, clearing,
settling, and processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Further, as
noted in more detail below, the changes being adopted by Phlx meet the
requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

 A. Exchange Delisting

    Amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b) states that a national securities
exchange may file an application on Form 25 to strike a class of
securities from listing and/or withdraw the registration of such
securities, in accordance with its rules, if the rules of such
exchange, at a minimum, provide for notice to the issuer of the
exchange's decision to delist, opportunity for appeal, and public
notice of the exchange's final determination to delist. The Commission
believes that Phlx's current rules and proposal comply with the
dictates of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b).
    Phlx rules currently provide the requisite issuer notice as well as
an opportunity for appeal to a committee designated by the Exchange's
Board of Governors. Specifically, issuers may appeal delisting
determinations by the Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee
to an ad hoc Exchange committee appointed by the Board of Governors and
the committee will consist of three persons, at least one of which must
be a member of the Board of Governors.\15\ Finally, the proposed rule
change will provide for public notice of the exchange's final
determination to remove the security from listing and/or registration.
This should ensure that investors have adequate notice of an exchange
delisting and is consistent with the protection of investors under
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The other two members of the Committee may be governors,
members, Exchange officials, and/or other persons (not having an
interest in the matter) as the Chairman of the Board of Governors
shall determine. See Phlx Rule 811(d).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 B. Issuer Voluntary Delisting

    The Exchange proposes to set forth in its Exchange rules the
general requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c) regarding issuer
voluntary delisting. Accordingly, amended Phlx Rule 809 would state
that an issuer shall delist its security by filing Form 25
electronically via Edgar in compliance with all of the requirements of
amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c). The Commission believes that the proposal
will better inform issuers of the requirements for voluntary delisting
of their securities under Phlx rules and federal securities laws.
    The proposal also sets forth a new requirement not in amended SEC
Rule 12d2-2 that would require an issuer seeking to voluntarily delist
its security to provide a copy of the Form 25 that it has filed with
the Commission simultaneously with such filing. The Commission believes
that this requirement will allow the Exchange to be fully informed of
the filing of a Form 25 and be prepared to take timely action to delist
the security in accordance with the filing of the Form.
    In addition, Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 809 to clarify that
not less than ten days before the issuer submits Form 25, an issuer
seeking to voluntarily apply to withdraw a security from listing on the
Exchange where the issuer has received notice from the Exchange,
pursuant to Phlx Rule 811 or otherwise, that the issuer is below the
Exchange's continued listing policies and standards, or that the issuer
is aware that it is below such continued listing policies and standards
notwithstanding that it has not received such notice from the Exchange,
must:
    (i) Provide written notice to the Exchange of its decision to
withdraw from listing indicating all material facts relating to the
reasons for withdraw in compliance with amended SEC Rule12d2-2(c); and
    (ii) Contemporaneously with providing such notice to the Exchange
disclose that it is no longer eligible for continued listing (including
the specific continued listing policies and standards that the issue is
below) in (A) its statement of all material facts relating to the
reasons for withdrawal from listing provided to the Exchange along with
written notice of its determination to withdraw from listing required
by amended SEC Rule12d2-2(c)(2)(ii), and (B) its release and Web site
notice required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that this requirement will allow
shareholders to be informed and aware that the issuer has failed to
meet Exchange listing standards and is voluntarily delisting with the
consent of the Exchange. Issuers will therefore not be permitted to
delist voluntarily without public disclosure of their noncompliance
with Exchange listing standards.

 C. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1,
and Amendment Nos. 2 and 3

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\18\ the Commission may not
approve any proposed rule change, or amendment thereto, prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of notice of the filing thereof,
unless the Commission finds good cause for so doing and publishes its
reasons for so finding. The Commission hereby finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the 30th day
after publishing notice of the proposed rule change and Amendment Nos.
1, 2, and 3 in the Federal Register. In the SEC Rule 12d2-2 Approval
Order, the Commission stated that the compliance date of the amendments
is April 24, 2006.\19\ In addition, no comments were received on the
proposal, as originally published.\20\ Accelerated approval of the
proposal, as amended, would enable the Exchange's amended rules to
become operative by the compliance date set forth by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\  See SEC Rule 12d2-2 Approval Order, supra note 10.
    \20\ See note 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further finds good cause for approving Amendment
Nos. 2 and 3 to the proposal, prior to the 30th day after publishing
notice of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 in the Federal Register. In Amendment
No. 2, Phlx amended its rule text to clarify that an issuer that is
below the continued listing policies and standards of the Exchange and
seeks to voluntarily apply to withdraw a class of securities from
listing must disclose its status. In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange
revised Phlx Rule 811 to clarify that an issuer that is below the
continued listing policies and standards of the Exchange and
considering delisting may file a delisting application pursuant to the
procedures outlined in amended Phlx Rule 809(b)-(c).
    As previously discussed, the revisions made to the proposal in
Amendment No. 2 will allow shareholders to be informed and aware that
the issuer has failed to meet Exchange listing standards and is
voluntarily delisting with the consent of the Exchange. The Commission
believes that granting accelerated approval of Amendment No. 2 will
permit the Exchange to implement this new provision as expeditiously as
possible, to the benefit of investors. In addition, the revisions made
to the proposal in Amendment No. 3 are clarifying changes. The
Commission also believes that accelerating approval of Amendment Nos. 2
and 3 is appropriate because these revisions do not raise new
regulatory issues.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\21\ the
Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as
amended, prior to the 30th day after notice of the proposed rule change
and Amendment

Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, including whether
Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 are 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-2005-62 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-2005-62. 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 the
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 Number SR-Phlx-2005-62 and should be submitted on or before May
18, 2006.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\22\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Phlx-2005-62), as
amended by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, is approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6345 Filed 4-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61850-61851]
[DOCID:fr17oc08-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13287-000]

City of New York; Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing, and Soliciting Comments, and Motions
To Intervene

October 9, 2008.
    On September 15, 2008, the city of New York filed a competing
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the West of Hudson Hydroelectric
Project, which comprises four development sites, Schoharie,
Cannonsville, Pepacton and Neversink, located on the Schoharie Creek,
West Branch Delaware River, East Branch Delaware River, and the
Neversink River, in Schoharie, Delaware and Sullivan Counties, New
York.
    The proposed West of Hudson Hydroelectric Project would consist of
the following developments:

Cannonsville Development

    (1) An existing 2,800-feet-long, 175-foot-high earthen Cannonsville
Dam; (2) an existing reservoir having a surface area of 4,800 acres and
a storage capacity of 300,000 acre-feet and normal water surface
elevation of 1,150 feet mean sea level; (3) a proposed 78-inch-diameter
penstock; (4) a proposed powerhouse containing four new generating
units having an installed capacity of 12.1-megawatts; (5) a proposed
tailrace; (6) a proposed 750-foot-long, 46-kilovolt transmission line;
and (7) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Cannonsville Development
would have an average annual generation of 25.46-gigawatt-hours.

Neversink Development

    (1) An existing 2,830-foot-long, 195-foot-high earthen Neversink
Dam; (2) an existing reservoir having a surface area of 1,477.8 acres
and a storage capacity of 112,000 acre-feet and normal water surface
elevation of 1,440 feet mean sea level; (3) a proposed powerhouse
containing two new generating units having an installed capacity of
1.65-megawatts; (4) a proposed tailrace; (5) a proposed 2,400-foot-
long, 4.8-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed Neversink Development would have an average annual
generation of 7.79-gigawatt-hours.

Pepacton Development

    (1) An existing 2,450-foot-long, 204-foot-high earthen Downsville
Dam; (2) an existing reservoir having a surface area of 5,700 acres and
a storage capacity of 441,000 acre-feet and normal water surface
elevation of 1,280 feet mean sea level; (3) a proposed powerhouse
containing two new generating units having an installed capacity of
3.1-megawatts; (4) a proposed tailrace; (5) an existing 800-feet-long,
46-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Pepacton Development would have an average annual generation
of 9.04-gigawatt-hours.

Schoharie Development

    (1) An existing 2,273-foot-long, 183-foot-high earthen Gilboa Dam;
(2) an existing reservoir having a surface area of 1,130 acres and a
storage capacity of 58,800 acre-feet and normal water surface elevation
of 1,130 feet mean sea level; (3) four penstocks; (4) a powerhouse
containing three new generating units having an installed capacity of
12.9-megawatts; (5) a tailrace; (6) a proposed 15,000-feet-long, 13.8-
kilovolt transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Schoharie Development would have an average annual generation
of 31.8-gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: For West of Hudson Hydroelectric Project, Mr.
Robert M. Loughney, Esq., Couch White, LLP, 540 Broadway, P.O. Box
22222, Albany, NY 12201, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
13222-000 filed May 9, 2008. Competing applications were required to be
filed on or before September 18, 2008.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-
Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be
paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be
mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more
information on how to submit these types of filings please go to the
Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
    Enter the docket number (P-13287-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24706 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53183-53186]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21597]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87154; File No. SR CboeBYX-2019-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent the Exchange's Pilot
Retail Price Improvement Program, Rule 11.24, Which is Set To Expire on
September 30, 2019, and Order Granting Limited Exemption Pursuant to
Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS

September 30, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On August 22, 2019, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make permanent Exchange Rule
11.24, which sets forth the Exchange's Pilot Retail Price Improvement
(``RPI'') Program (``Program'').\3\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 29, 2019.\4\
The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
In connection with the proposed rule change, the Exchange requests
exemptive relief from Rule 612 of Regulation NMS,\5\ which, among other
things, prohibits a national securities exchange from accepting or
ranking orders priced greater than $1.00 per share in an increment
smaller than $0.01 (``Sub-Penny Rule'').\6\ The Commission is issuing
this order approving the proposed rule change and granting the Exchange
limited exemptive relief pursuant to Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68303 (November 27,
2012), 77 FR 71652 (December 3, 2012) (``RPI Approval Order'') (SR-
BYX-2012-019).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86742 (August 23,
2019), 84 FR 45575 (``Notice'').
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.612(c).
    \6\ See note 11 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to make the Program permanent. In the Notice,
the Exchange sets forth and discusses its analysis of the Program and
basis for permanent approval.

Overview of the Program

    The Program is designed to attract retail order flow to the
Exchange, and allow such order flow to receive potential price
improvement.\7\ All Regulation NMS securities traded on the Exchange
are eligible for the RPI Program. The Program is limited to trades
occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 45575.
    \8\ Exchange Rule 11.24(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 11.24 sets forth the rules governing the Program.
Exchange Rule 11.24(a) contains the defined terms for the Program. It
defines a ``Retail Member Organization'' (or ``RMO'') as a Member (or a
division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange to submit
Retail Orders. Under Exchange Rule 11.24(b)(1), to qualify as an RMO, a
Member of the Exchange must conduct a retail business or route retail
orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. Exchange Rule 11.24(b)(2)
sets forth the process for a Member to apply to become an RMO, which
includes an attestation from the Member that substantially all orders
that it submits as Retail Orders will qualify as such. Exchange Rule
11.24(c) sets forth when and how the Exchange would remove a Member's
RMO Status (i.e., disqualification), and Exchange Rule 11.24(d) sets
forth the process for a Member to appeal a disapproval of its RMO
application or an RMO disqualification under Exchange Rule 11.24(c).
    Exchange Rule 11.24(a) defines the terms ``Retail Order'' \9\ and
``Retail Price Improvement Order'' (``RPI Order'' or collectively,
``RPI Interest'').\10\ Both

Retail Orders and RPI Orders are non-display orders. A Retail Order
must be submitted by an RMO, and an RPI Order must provide price
improvement of at least $0.001 to Retail Orders. RPI Orders may only
execute against Retail Orders, and an RPI Order may only execute
against a Retail Order if it provides price improvement of at least
$0.001 better than the national best bid or offer (NBBO).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Under Exchange Rule 11.24(a)(2), a ``Retail Order'' is
defined as an agency order or riskless principal that meets the
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person
and is submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with
respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate
from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. A
Retail Order is an Immediate or Cancel (``IOC'') Order and shall
operate in accordance with Rule 11.24(f). A Retail Order may be an
odd lot, round lot, or mixed lot.
    \10\ Under Exchange Rule 11.24(a)(3), an RPI Order is consists
of non-displayed interest on the Exchange that is priced better than
the Protected NBB or Protected NBO by at least $0.001 and that is
identified as such (``RPI interest''). The System will monitor
whether RPI buy or sell interest, adjusted by any offset and subject
to the ceiling or floor price, is eligible to interact with incoming
Retail Orders. An RPI Order remains non-displayed in its entirety
(the buy or sell interest, the offset, and the ceiling or floor). An
RPI Order may also be entered in a sub-penny increment with an
explicit limit price. Any User is permitted, but not required, to
submit RPI Orders. An RPI Order may be an odd lot, round lot or
mixed lot.
    \11\ In the RPI Approval Order, the Commission also granted the
Exchange's request for exemptive relief from the Sub-Penny Rule. See
RPI Approval Order, supra note 3, at 71658. In conjunction with this
proposal to make the Program Permanent, the Exchange has submitted a
separate written request for exemptive relief from the Sub-Penny
Rule. See Letter from Adrian Griffith, Assistant General Counsel,
Cboe, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission dated September 23, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Exchange Rule 11.24(e), the Exchange disseminates an
identifier when RPI interest priced at least $0.001 better than the
Exchange's Protected Bid or Protected Offer for a particular security
is available in the System (``Retail Liquidity Identifier''). The
Retail Liquidity Identifier is disseminated through consolidated data
streams (i.e., pursuant to the Consolidated Tape Association Plan/
Consolidated Quotation System, or CTA/CQS, for Tape A and Tape B
securities, and The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (``Nasdaq'') UTP Plan for
Tape C securities) as well as through proprietary Exchange data feeds.
The Retail Liquidity Identifier reflects the symbol and the side (buy
or sell) of the RPI interest, but does not include the price or size of
the RPI interest.
    Under Exchange Rule 11.24(f), an RMO can designate how a Retail
Order interacts with available contra-side interest. Under Exchange
Rule 11.24(f), Retail Orders can be designated as either Type-1 or
Type-2. A Type 1-designated Retail Order interact with available
contra-side RPI Orders and any other price improving contra-side
interest but will not interact with other available contra-side
interest in the System that is not offering price improvement or route
to other markets. The portion of a Type-1 Retail Order that does not
execute against contra-side RPI Orders or other price improving
liquidity will be immediately and automatically cancelled. A Type 2-
designated Retail Order will interact first with available contra-side
RPI Orders and other price improving liquidity and them any remaining
portion of the Retail Order will be executed as an Immediate-or-Cancel
(``IOC'') Order pursuant to Rule 11.9(b)(1). A Type2-designated Order
can either be submitted as a BYX Only Order or as an order eligible for
routing pursuant to Rule 11.13(a)(2).
    Exchange Rule11.24(g) sets forth the priority and order allocation
rules for how RPI Orders are ranked against both RPI and non-RPI orders
when the Exchange receives a contra-side Retail Order. Competing RPI
Orders in the same security are ranked and allocated according to price
then time of entry into the Exchange's System. Executions occur in
price/time priority in accordance with Exchange Rule 11.12. When an RPI
executes against a Retail Order, any remaining unexecuted RPI interest
will be available to interact with other incoming Retail Orders if such
interest is at an eligible price, but any remaining unexecuted portion
of the Retail Order will cancel or execute in accordance with its
Retail Order designation under Exchange Rule 11.24(f).
    Exchange Rule 11.24(h) currently provides that the program is a
pilot set to expire the earlier of approval of this proposal or
September 30, 2019. The Exchange proposes to eliminate this provision
of the rule and make the Program permanent based on its analysis of the
Program.

Analysis of the Program

    As more fully set forth in the Notice, the Exchange submitted data
and analysis to support its proposal for making the Program
permanent.\12\ The Exchange stated that the Program provided $4.5
million in price improvement to retail investors during its review
period, January 2016 and June 2018.\13\ The Exchange also asserted that
it has achieved its goal of attracting retail order flow to the
Exchange, noting there has been consistent retail investor interest in
the Program, which has provided tangible price improvement to those
retail investors through a competitive pricing process over the course
of the pilot.\14\ The Exchange stated that it has not received any
complaints or negative feedback concerning the Program.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 45579-45599.
    \13\ See id. at 45575.
    \14\ See id. at 45579.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange undertook a difference-in-difference
(``DID'') analysis to also analyze the Program's impact on the broader
market.\16\ The Exchange noted that the introduction of the Program
applied to all stocks traded on the Exchange and, therefore, control
stocks in the strict sense were not available. To account for this, the
Exchange identified stocks with relatively high levels of participation
in the Program for use as the ``treatment'' group, and used stocks with
low participation in the Program as the ``control'' group.\17\ The
Exchange sought to enhance the validity of the DID analysis by
otherwise making the treatment group and the control group as similar
as possible. The Exchange divided the analysis into two parts: Active
securities and less active securities. The active securities consist of
stocks with consolidated average daily volume (``CADV'') of 500,000
shares or more. The less active securities consist of stocks with CADV
of between 50,000 and 500,000 shares.\18\ Within each subgroup, the
Exchange conducted what it describes as a ``matched pair'' process to
identify a smaller set of treatment and control groups that are as
similar as possible across three market quality statistics: (i)
Consolidated average daily share volume; (ii) average price; and (iii)
average BBO spread across exchanges.\19\ To conduct the analysis of the
Program's effect on overall market quality, the Exchange compared those
statistics during a pre-treatment period (October 2012 to December
2012) against those statistics from January 2013 to December 2013 and
January 2017 to December 2018, obtaining a set of four DID regression
analyses.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A DID statistical technique allows studying the
differential effect of a treatment on data measured between a
treatment group and a control group. The two groups are measured
during two or more different time periods, usually a period before
``treatment'' and at least one time period after ``treatment,'' that
is, a time period after which the treatment group is impacted but
the control group is not. For each group, the difference between a
measure in the pre-treatment and the treatment period is computed.
Those differences for a measure for the two groups are then compared
to each other by taking the difference between them.
    \17\ See id. at 45585-86 for a full description of the
Exchange's methodology.
    \18\ See id. at 45586.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on results for each sample group in the Exchange's regression
analysis, the Exchange concluded that the overall results were not
statistically significant to support a conclusion that the introduction
of the Program caused spreads to widen.\21\ In fact, the Exchange's
regressions suggested some narrowing of spreads between the
pretreatment period and the post

treatment periods, however the Exchange stated that these observations
could not necessarily be attributed to the Program, but did support a
conclusion that the Program did not result in wider spreads.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id. at 45588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also analyzed available size and found a decrease in
the average bid and ask size on BYX in treatment securities observed
from 2017-2018 with less liquid securities relative to the control
group--6.54 round lots on the bid side and 13.22 round lots on the ask
side.\23\ The Exchange stated that it believes these changes may have
been caused by factors unrelated to the Program and noted that the
average BYX bid and ask sizes materially increased during the course of
the pilot for securities in both the treatment and control groups.\24\
The Exchange concluded that the regression results are consistent with
a finding that the Program did not materially harm depth on BYX.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the based on its analysis, including its DID analysis, as
well as the small size of the Program, the Exchange concluded that the
Program did not have a negative impact on market quality.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
proposal to make permanent the Program, Exchange Rule 11.24, is
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\26\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) \27\ and 6(b)(8) \28\
of the Exchange Act. Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires that
the rules of a national securities exchange be designed, among other
things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Section 6(b)(8) of the
Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the Program on a pilot basis to allow the
Exchange and market participants to gain valuable practical experience
with the Program during the pilot period, and to allow the Commission
to determine whether modifications to the Program were necessary or
appropriate prior to any Commission decision to approve or disapprove
the Program on a permanent basis. The Program's pilot period was
originally scheduled to end on January 11, 2014, and the Exchange filed
to extend the operation of the pilot on several occasions.\29\ The
pilot is now set to expire on September 30, 2019, and the Exchange
proposes to make the Program permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71249 (January 7,
2014), 79 FR 2229 (January 13, 2014) (SR-BYX-2014-001); 74111
(January 22, 2015), 80 FR 4598 (January 28, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-05);
76965 (January 22, 2016), 81 FR 4682 (January 27, 2016) (SR-BYX-
2016-01); 78180 (June 28, 2016), 81 FR 43306 (July 1, 2016) (SR-
BatsBYX-2016-15); 81368 (August 10, 2017), 82 FR 38960 (August 16,
2017) (SR-BatsBYX-2017-18); 84830 (December 17, 2018), 83 FR 65769
(December 21, 2018) (SR-CboeBYX-2018-025); 86206 (June 26, 2019), 84
FR 31650 (July 2, 2019) (SR-CboeBYX-2019-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in the RPI Approval Order, the Exchange agreed to
provide the Commission with a significant amount of data to assist the
Commission's evaluation of the Program prior to any permanent approval
of the Program.\30\ Specifically, the Exchange represented that it
would ``produce data throughout the pilot, which will include
statistics about participation, the frequency and level of price
improvement provided by the Program, and any effects on the broader
market structure.'' \31\ The Commission expected the Exchange to
monitor the scope and operation of the Program and study the data
produced during that time with respect to such issues.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See RPI Approval Order, supra note 3, at 71657.
    \31\ See id.
    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission believes that the
Exchange's Program data and analysis about price improvement for retail
investors and the DID analysis support the Exchange's conclusion that
the Program provides meaningful price improvement to retail investors
on a regulated exchange venue and has not demonstrably caused harm to
the broader market. As noted above, the Exchange demonstrated that
during the operation of the Program, retail orders received price
improvement on the Exchange. Furthermore, in undertaking the DID
analysis, the Exchange examined whether spreads on the Exchange widened
to the detriment of the broader market, and concluded that they did
not.\33\ Based on the foregoing, and after careful consideration of the
Exchange's analysis of the data generated by the Program, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra notes 21 and 22 and accompanying text. The
Commission also notes that it recently approved on a permanent basis
two other exchange's substantially similar retail price improvement
program based on a similar type of DID analysis. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 85160 (February 15, 2019), 84 FR 5754
(February 22, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2018-28) (approving the New York Stock
Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program on a permanent basis and
granting a limited exemption to the Sub-Penny Rule); and 86194 (June
25, 2019), 84 FR 31373 (July 1, 2019) (approving the Nasdaq BX's
Retail Liquidity Program on a permanent basis and granting a limited
exemption to the Sub-Penny Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Limited Exemption from the Sub-Penny Rule

    Pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS,\34\
the Commission hereby grants the Exchange a limited exemption from the
Sub-Penny Rule to operate the Program. For the reasons discussed below,
the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 242.612(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Commission adopted the Sub-Penny Rule in 2005, the
Commission identified a variety of problems caused by sub-pennies that
the Sub-Penny Rule was designed to address:
     If investors' limit orders lose execution priority for a
nominal amount, investors may over time decline to use them, thus
depriving the markets of liquidity.
     When market participants can gain execution priority for a
nominal amount, important customer protection rules such as exchange
priority rules and the Manning Rule \35\ could be undermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Rule 5320
(Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Flickering quotations that can result from widespread sub-
penny pricing could make it more difficult for broker-dealers to
satisfy their best execution obligations and other regulatory
responsibilities.
     Widespread sub-penny quoting could decrease market depth
and lead to higher transaction costs.

     Decreasing depth at the inside could cause institutions to
rely more on execution alternatives away from the exchanges,
potentially increasing fragmentation in the securities markets.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (Adopting Order for Regulation
NMS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the limited exemption granted today
should continue to promote competition between exchanges and OTC market
makers in a manner that is reasonably designed to minimize the problems
that the Commission identified when adopting the Sub-Penny Rule. Under
the Program, sub-penny prices will not be disseminated through the
consolidated quotation data stream, which should avoid quote flickering
and its reduced depth at the inside quotation.
    Furthermore, the Commission does not believe that granting this
limited exemption and approving the proposal would reduce incentives
for market participants to display limit orders. As noted in the RPI
Approval Order, market participants that displayed limit orders at the
time were not able to interact with marketable retail order flow
because that order flow was almost entirely routed to internalizing OTC
market makers that offered sub-penny executions.\37\ The Program has
attracted a small volume from the OTC market makers. As a result,
enabling the Exchange to continue to compete for retail order flow
through the Program should not materially detract from the current
incentives to display limit orders, while potentially resulting in
greater order interaction and price improvement for marketable retail
orders on a public national securities exchange. To the extent that the
Program may raise Manning and best execution issues for broker-dealers,
these issues are already presented by the existing practices of OTC
market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See RPI Approval Order, supra note 3, at 71658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This permanent and limited exemption from the Sub-Penny Rule is
limited solely to the operation of the Program by the Exchange. This
exemption does not extend beyond the scope of Exchange Rule 11.24. In
addition, this exemption is conditioned on the Exchange continuing to
conduct the Program, in accordance with Exchange Rule 11.24 and
substantially as described in the Exchange's request for exemptive
relief and the proposed rule change.\38\ Any changes in Exchange Rule
11.24 may cause the Commission to reconsider this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\39\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CboeBYX-2019-014)
be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is further ordered that, pursuant to Rule 612(c) under
Regulation NMS, that the Exchange shall be exempt from Rule 612(a) of
Regulation NMS with respect to the operation of the Program as set
forth in Exchange Rule 11.24 as described herein.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21597 Filed 10-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77793-77795]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31375]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1158; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-125-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to all Model 747 airplanes. The existing AD
currently requires repetitive inspections to detect damage of the
sleeving and wire bundles of the boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4
main fuel tanks, and of the auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if
installed); replacement of any damaged sleeving with new sleeving; and
repair or replacement of any damaged wires with new wires. For
airplanes on which any burned wires are found, the existing AD also
requires an inspection to detect damage of the conduit, and replacement
of any damaged conduit with a serviceable conduit. This proposed AD
would reduce the initial compliance time and repetitive inspection
interval in the existing AD. This proposed AD results from fleet
information indicating that the repetitive inspection interval in the
existing AD is too long because excessive chafing of the sleeving
continues to occur much earlier than expected between scheduled
inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct abrasion of
the Teflon sleeving and wires in the bundles of the fuel boost pumps
for the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks and of the auxiliary tank
jettison pumps (if installed), which could result in electrical arcing
between the wires and aluminum conduit and consequent fire or explosion
of the fuel tank.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 28,
2011.

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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket 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 Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6506; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1158;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-125-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 9, 1997, we issued AD 97-26-07, Amendment 39-10250 (62
FR 65352, December 12, 1997), for all Model 747 airplanes. That AD
currently requires repetitive inspections to detect damage of the
sleeving and wire bundles of the boost pumps of the numbers 1 and 4
main fuel tanks, and of the auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if
installed); replacement of any damaged sleeving with new sleeving; and
repair or replacement of any damaged wires with new wires. For
airplanes on which any burned wires are found, that AD also requires an
inspection to detect damage of the conduit, and replacement of any
damaged conduit with a serviceable conduit. That AD resulted from
reports of chafing of the sleeving. We issued that AD to detect and
correct abrasion of the Teflon sleeving and wires in the bundles of the
fuel boost pumps for the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks and of the
auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if installed), which could result in
electrical arcing between the wires and the aluminum conduit and
consequent fire or explosion of the fuel tank.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 97-26-07, we received fleet information from the
manufacturer indicating that excessive chafing of the sleeving
continues to occur much earlier than expected between scheduled
inspections. Due to that fact, the manufacturer has revised the service
information to reduce the repetitive inspection intervals.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204,
Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010. The service information reduces the
initial compliance time and repetitive inspection interval for
detecting damage

of the sleeving and wire bundles of the boost pumps of the numbers 1
and 4 main fuel tanks, and of the auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if
installed) specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision
1, dated October 30, 1997. Revision 1 of this service bulletin was
referred to in AD 97-26-07 as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the specified actions. The actions
described in Revision 3 of this service bulletin are essentially the
same as those described in Revision 1 of this service bulletin.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 97-26-07 and would retain the requirements of the
existing AD at reduced compliance times.

Change to Existing AD

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 97-26-07.
Since AD 97-26-07 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Corresponding requirement in
  Requirement in AD 97[dash]26[dash]07           this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (a)..........................  paragraph (g).
paragraph (b)..........................  paragraph (h).
paragraph (c)..........................  paragraph (i).
paragraph (d)..........................  paragraph (j).
paragraph (e)..........................  paragraph (k).
paragraph (f)..........................  paragraph (l).
paragraph (g)..........................  paragraph (m).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 772 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 215 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The new requirements of this proposed AD add no
additional economic burden. The current costs for this proposed AD are
repeated below for the convenience of affected operators.
    The actions that are required by AD 97-26-07 and retained in this
proposed AD take about 4 work-hours per airplane, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the currently required actions is $73,100, or $340 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.

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 have 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 that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-10250 (62 FR
65352, December 12, 1997) and adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-1158; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-125-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January
28, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 97-26-07, Amendment 39-10250.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -
100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, -400, -400D, -400F,
747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fleet information indicating that the
repetitive inspection interval in the existing AD is too long
because excessive chafing of the sleeving continues to occur much
earlier than expected between scheduled inspections. The Federal
Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to detect and correct
abrasion of the Teflon sleeving and wires in the bundles of the fuel
boost pumps for the numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks and of the
auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if installed), which could result in
electrical arcing between the wires and aluminum conduit and
consequent fire or explosion of the fuel tank.

Compliance

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

Restatement of Requirements of AD 96-26-06, Amendment 39-9870

Inspections/Repair or Replace if Necessary

    (g) Perform an initial inspection to detect damage of the
sleeving and wire bundles of the forward and aft boost pumps of the
numbers 1 and 4 main fuel tanks, and of the wire bundles of the
auxiliary tank jettison pumps (if installed), in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, dated December 19, 1996, or
Revision 1, dated October 30, 1997; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-28A2204, Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010, at the time specified
in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. After the
effective date of this AD,

only Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204 may be
used.
    (1) For airplanes having line numbers 001 through 432 inclusive:
Inspect within 120 days after January 21, 1997 (the effective date
of AD 96-26-06, amendment 39-9870, which was superseded by AD 97-26-
07).
    (2) For airplanes having line numbers 433 and subsequent:
Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)
or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 flight cycles or 60,000
flight hours, whichever occurs first; or
    (ii) Within 120 days after December 29, 1997 (the effective date
of AD 97-26-07).
    (h) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD
at intervals not to exceed 20,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight
hours since the last inspection, whichever occurs first, until the
first inspection required by paragraph (n) of this AD has been
accomplished.
    (i) If any damaged sleeving is found, prior to further flight,
replace the sleeving with new sleeving, in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, dated December 19, 1996, or Revision
1, dated October 30, 1997; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2204, Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010. After the effective date
of this AD, only Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2204 may be used.
    (j) If any damaged wire is found, prior to further flight,
repair or replace the wire with a new wire, in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, dated December 19, 1996, or
Revision 1, dated October 30, 1997; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-28A2204, Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010. After the effective
date of this AD, only Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-28A2204 may be used.
    (k) If any burned wire is found, prior to further flight,
perform an inspection to detect damage of the conduit, in accordance
with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, dated December 19, 1996,
or Revision 1, dated October 30, 1997; or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010. If any
damage is found, prior to further flight, replace the conduit with a
serviceable conduit, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
28A2204, dated December 19, 1996, or Revision 1, dated October 30,
1997; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204, Revision 3,
dated March 11, 2010. After the effective date of this AD, only
Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2204 may be used.
    (l) For airplanes having line numbers 433 and subsequent: Within
14 days after accomplishing the initial inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, submit a report of any damaged sleeving
(i.e., holes, breaks, cuts, splits), damaged wire (i.e., worn or
cracked insulation, exposed conductor, indication of arcing/
burning), or damaged conduit to the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The report shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4), and (l)(5) of this AD. Information
collection requirements contained in this regulation have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) The airplane serial number.
    (2) The total hours' time-in-service accumulated on the
airplane.
    (3) The total number of flight cycles accumulated on the
airplane.
    (4) A description of any damage found.
    (5) The location of where the damaged part was installed.
    (m) For airplanes having line numbers 433 and subsequent: Within
14 days after accomplishing the initial inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, submit any damaged part to the Manager,
Seattle ACO. The damaged part shall be tagged to include the
information specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4),
and (l)(5) of this AD. Additionally, operators shall align the inner
sleeving, outer sleeving, and wire as installed in the airplane, and
secure the sleeving and wiring in place by taping or other means
when submitting the damaged part to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information collection requirements contained in this regulation
have been approved by the OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

New Reduced Inspection Intervals

Repetitive Inspections

    (n) Do the next inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD
at the time specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
28A2204, Revision 3, dated March 11, 2010. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,000 flight hours.
Accomplishing the initial inspection in this paragraph ends the
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do
the inspection at the earlier of the times specified in paragraph
(n)(1)(i) and (n)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 15,000 flight hours after the most recent inspection,
or within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Within 20,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight hours after
the most recent inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this
AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD has not been done as of the effective date of this
AD: Do the inspection before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight
hours, or within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.

Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    (o) A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (p)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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: Jon Regimbal, Aerospace
Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 97-26-07,
Amendment 39-10250, are approved as alternative methods of
compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
Compliance time extensions approved previously in accordance with AD
97-26-07, are not approved as alternative methods of compliance for
the compliance times required by paragraph (n) of this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 15, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-31375 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P